I asked you that. You're the one that is making statements that don't agree with observations.
no, you dictated your belief to me without any type
of evidence to show just like science dictated to you
what you should think.
ie...
If it is necessary to have a heat source of some sort to cause hydrogen and oxygen to combine where do you think the water in comets, which formed in the cold depths of space, came from?
They formed from a chemical reaction which is easily initiated in a great many ways. The chemicals of life can be formed in the same way, by simple chemical reactions. They can then be combined through other simple chemical reactions to form ever more complex chemicals until they all come together to produce life.
my response to your dictation was to attempt to retrieve some
amount of evidence that you based your dictation on.
obviously you have none , you only have speculation and the
degree of lip service that science has dictated to you.
religion is not what is making a claim that science is wrong
about how life came into existence , science is the one that
is making a claim that religion is wrong and science has nothing to show as evidence nor has science observed life
coming into existence.
and the belief of creation has been around on earth a lot longer than any of the beliefs of science.
So that we can expect that any that can occur probably does. Therefore the presence of life, which is based on chemical reactions, should not come as surprise.
I don't think that science has provided enough evidence to
support their claim about how science assumes that life came into being , so your use of the word "expect" is trumped up to say the least and you should use the word "assume" or "speculate" , and a surprise would be that science matures enough to admit it knows nothing about it and stops acting
a little less like the child that it is.
