In what way? At what point does self-replicating non-life (molecules and whatnot) shade over into self-replicating life? What separates life from non-life? All biological processes come down to simple chemistry, with nothing magical about them. What differentiates the chemistry going on in a living organism and similar chemistry taking place in a laboratory?
I'm not being facetious here. You said "even a child knows" this stuff, but I contend he doesn't "know" anything in this regard. Neither do you nor do I.
Sure it does. Please engage brain before posting.
Life must.
Of course, it does too.
Even a child knows that life is differentiated from non-life,
Please state the exact differentiation. We'll wait.
that a test tube of chemicals cannot give birth to another test tube of chemicals.
Sure it does, once your sloppy undefined term "birth" is narrowed down appropriately.
While research into the origins of life may have been "fruitful", it still lacks the essential point of proof that is the foundation of any peer review system.
Congratulations, you managed to screw up a fundamental principle of the scientific method while attempting to "lecture" the rest of us on it. Science does not deal in "proof". Indeed, outside of artificial self-contained realms such as propositional mathematics, "proof" is an impossible standard to achieve in any real-world endeavor.
So far, no "peer" has been able to reproduce what God claims: life from constituent components.
No one has managed to catch any god in the act of doing so either. Call that one a draw. But that doesn't negate the successful research results which you attempt, and fail, to just hand-wave away.
You will recall that the inability of the scientific peers of Ponds and Fleishman to reproduce their cold-fusion experiment was the basis to label these claims as being unfounded. Why the double standard?
There is no double standard, unless you're trying to assert that anyone has actually claimed to have successfully produced life already, and then no one bothered to replicate their process. Until then, there's no double standard at all. The research that *has* been done confirming various aspects of abiogenesis hypotheses, on the other hand, *can* and *has* been reproduced. Science 1, you 0.
Let's be honest: evolutionists need to prove that God is not who He says He is: the creator of life.
Let's be honest, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. The *majority* of American evolutionists are *Christians*. Sorry if that makes your head explode, and destroys your ignorant prejudices about what evolutionists "need" to do.
Indeed, it seems to me these folks are frantic to find any other possible way to explain life- other than it was created as a deliberate act by a higher power.
You "seem" to not have any real familiarity with the actual research. Your bigotries about people you misunderstand are duly noted.
A Creator that does not exist, or at least who has a major claim to his power nullified, cannot make any demands of humanity and certainly has no business setting standards of morality by which He will judge humanity in the resurrection. (Daniel 12:2, Rev 20:12) Indeed, the entire concept of a resurrection to judgement is mooted by evolutionary theology. When life comes from nothing, nothing is the standard for life.
Yawn. Let me know when you get back to talking about something that is actually a significant motivation for the scientists you don't know much about. Your conspiracy theory about them looking for excuses to sin is laughable, and quite simply false.
Why else would a Creator matter, or make necessary such lengthy and angry replies to the mere suggestion that evolutionists start from a faulty assumption, an assumption it is forbidden to mention in polite company.
You don't get "angry replies" about the "mere suggestion" that a creator might have been involved (a lot of us believe that to be the case) you get exasperated and annoyed replies from folks who are sick and tired of being called fools and charlatans by people who wouldn't know an endogenous retrovirus from a retroposon, and who argue against evolutionary biology using childishly flawed fallacies, ignorant claims, and outright propaganda, and who know next to nothing about the field they're attempting to "lecture" the rest of us on, and who say such bone-headedly insulting things as "even a child knows" in order to belittle a topic that is actually extremely complicated and nuanced, and has multiple layers of complexity as one looks deeper and deeper into it. Know anyone like that?
As one of the "Murphy's Laws" says, "if the problem seems simple, it's only because you really don't understand it properly."
Then go find a child to help you answer these questions:
1. Is a quiescent anthrax spore in a vacuum bottle alive or dead?
2. Is a human body in DHCA (Deep Hypothermic Cardiac Arrest) for two hours alive or dead? They have no heartbeat, no brain activity, the blood has been drained from their body and is in a bucket on the floor, and their body has been cooled to extreme lows. Their cells are undergoing the kind of progressive damage seen in refrigerated meat.
3. If your answer to question #2 is "alive", how about the same human body after three weeks?
4. If your answer to question#3 is "dead", then at what moment or event did they instantaneously cross the line from "alive" to "dead", and how is that instant determined?
5. Is a million-year-old pollen grain alive or dead?
6. Sperm in liquid nitrogen?
7. Frozen embryos?
8. Dehydrated brine shrimp eggs?
9. Henrietta Lacks, whose body was buried in in the cemetery across the street from her family's tobacco farm in Virginia in 1951?
10. A crystallized Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV)?
11. A TMV decomposed into its constituent parts?
12. The viral parts in question#11 decomposed into their constituent molecules?
13. The molecules in question#12 decomposed into their constituent atoms?
14. The atoms, molecules, or parts in questions#11-13 reassembled back into a virus?
In your answer for each of these questions, please state the specific reasons for your "alive" or your "dead" answer in the particular case. Make sure your criteria are entirely consistent in all cases, and are specific enough to allow them to be applied to new cases I have not yet mentioned without giving answers which fly in the face of the common sense assessment for those additional cases.
If indeed, "even a child" knows the difference, these should not be difficult questions for you to answer consistently, in an objective manner, and in a way that doesn't produce nonsense results when applied to further examples.
Thanks in advance.