actually Vyasadeva there has been an experiment conducted in which the conditions that existed here on earth billions and billions of years ago, were replicated and simple single cell life was able to begin, i forget the name it was in a chemistry book i had. but i will try and find a link to post it up here it was actually quite interesting. Yes the odds of the combinations to first produce life, not consciousness (which would happen billions and billions of years in the future) are astronomical, but then again the universe is a very big place with an innumerable amount of combinations exist. I will try to find that experiment so you dont just think i am talking out of my rectum...
I know what you are talking about. It's the Urey/Miller experiment, but you are incorrect that simple cell life was created. First, all they were able to do were re-create the amino acid precursors which could lead to the chemicals necessary to sustain life. Secondly, the theory of abiogenesis is that this combination of chemicals which produced life occurred randomly; but scientists in a laboratory carefully measuring out amounts of chemicals and overseeing and administering the precise combinations is hardly an act of randomness and chance. It is more similar to an imitation of the actual Creator, who simply by
glancing over the entire material nature, animates it and creates, sustains, and destroys it. This act of creation is done simply by the glance of the Lord, whereas these scientists have to do years and years of experiments and tests and research and development, simply to perform an experiment to produce a *precursor* to a likely chemical in the primordial soup?? And not only that, but by intentionally creating life the scientists defies his own position that life arose randomly and free from a creator. It is very easy to see the childish position of one who spends his life in an attempt to create life yet simultaneously rejects the notion that he himself was created. What would this fool say if he actually created a life form which then denied his creator's existence?
The Urey/Miller experiment is from wayyy back in the 50s, and oddly enough, since that time there has been zero advancement in the area of abiogenesis and the theory that life arose as a result of random chemical interactions.
however i also believe that science does not have all the information at the current time, but that is what is so great about science. IT EVOLVES once we gain new information. Science is ever changing 500 years ago science believed the earth was flat and you would sail off of it. Who knows what we will conclude in another 500 years, That is why i cannot in any way shape or form agree with creationism. because it does not allow for new information it simply states how things were and there is no debate.
You say "who knows what we will conclude in another 500 years", but you just got finished giving an example of how our conclusions are constantly proved laughably imperfect. Given this axiomatic imperfection in our ability to perceive and speculate on cosmic matters, what value does this future "conclusion" hold? No more than the ancient conclusion that the world was flat. That conclusion is laughed at and is considered worthless, yet at the time it was accepted as actual fact. And presently, we have people accepting things like Big Bang theories and Evolution theories. These things are accepted and taught as if they are actual fact, but the track record of science shows that in a few hundred years, these "conclusions" will be shown to have been insanely premature and completely incorrect. So while I do not value science's "conclusions" regarding things existential and cosmological, I certainly appreciate the technological and medical wonders it has produced. But the big questions leave science silent, and the "conclusions" carry exactly zero value. Absolutely none. And it holds none because as you have pointed out, the "conclusions" are purely relative, they are constantly changing, and due to our imperfect nature our conclusions are therefore imperfect.
I assume you are referring to the Judeo-Christian version of creationism, but I suppose that any scripture which describes creation would be viewed by you as equally untrue due to it being seen as unchangeable; written in stone, so to speak. But you have to remember, God is an eternal being. You can debate Him or His process for creating all you want, but the fact remains that He is unchanging. He has no beginning and no ending, He is what He is eternally, and whatever method He employs in creating the temporal universe, is an unchanging and absolute process. It never began and it will never end, therefore this process is not subject to our verification, given that we are mere temporal parts and parcels of the creation. Furthermore our 5 senses and mind are imperfect, and being that we are subordinate to the overall material energy, we can never place ourselves in the position of validating or verifying the creation process. How is that possible when the universe is infinitely larger than we are and we are dependent upon it for susbistence? That's like a chicken somehow going back into his egg and back inside the hen but remaining outside to verify that the hen actually laid it. So just this very notion of verifying God's method is suspect. It is what it is and we either see His hand in it, or we do not. The Srimad Bhagavatam describes the creation of the material worlds, but I would bet that when you use the word "creationism" you do so with some idea of the "Bibilical" version of the 6,000 year old earth, etc.
