[From many - one.]

RE: your last paragraph

1. the environmental circumstances that existed when life started do not really exist now on the earth.

2. we don't know for an absolutefact that life is not springing up in some form. Two reasons: first: we're not spending billions of dollars looking and, second, there's no reason to assume new living things would differ from the most primitive currently living things in ways we are prepared to identify.

[Williams]

I see, so you actually think the present Earth, with an enormous range of ecosystems, contains no places on which life can be created as it was "once" a billion years ago or so. Show me the scientific paper that identifies the now nonexistent necessary conditions.

Your alternate is that "new life" might be springing up every day all the time and we just don't notice it because the first life of one billion years ago is just like what we have around today. So for some reason, this randomly created new life is identical to one billion years ago, yet you see no pattern or plan in the rules of nature which is more than "random."

Now who's clutching at straws to answer things they can't answer. Neither of your scenarios are scientifically proven, or reproducable in a laboratory or anywhere else by scientists.

I'm not a creationist, but those of you who are stone cold scientific materialists remind me of me about 30 years ago. You are sadly ignorant of the deep rift between science and religion which has left neither with the ability to answer all questions.