Ecclesiastes 11:5 vs Modern Science

[Ken]

As a landlord, I am truly thankful that my tenants are even more true than the four tenants of Darwin's famous theory.

Spelling has never been one of my strongest talents! Especially when the misspelled word is some other correctly-spelled different word and the spell check doesn't catch it.

With as often as you malaprop that word (with both spellings alternating in this post!) and as often as we lampoon it, you'd think the correct usage would be living rent-free in your head by now.

You'd think so but no. I still have to google "whose" vs. "who's" to remind myself which to use. With so much useless stuff rattling around in my brain I guess there is no room for useful spelling and grammar.

[JohnHurt]

No, it is not impossible. Chromosomes themselves can evolve, fuse, and split through various mutations. There is a lot of scientific research in this area. Google "chromosome evolution" if you are curious. Of course whether you choose to accept it or dismiss it is your choice as with anything else. But this is not some area of science for which there is a "black box" of missing information.

Yes, I looked this up:

https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com ... 018-1559-1

Yes, the article said that "science" surmises that 450 MILLION years ago, this could have happened. But it didn't, because if it happened once, it would have happened repeatedly if it were true.

And it doesn't happen now, so it could not have happened in the past.

They made it all up.

Have you seen any new species lately? No. There is your proof. The mechanism of creating new species does not exist in nature. It exists only in the mind of the "evolutionists".

So there is no mechanism that can be studied by "science" that creates a new species. They must believe in creation of all of the species by "evolution" as an "act of blind faith" by every "Modern Scientist".

And so the question remains, how does one species create another species with a different number of chromosomes, or even if it has the same number of chromosomes, but different DNA strands?

Why can't a male donkey (62 chromosomes) and a female horse (64 chromosomes) create a new "mule" species (63 chromosomes) that is not sterile?

Why can't a lion and a tiger, who both have 38 chromosomes, create a new "Liger" or "Tion" species of 38 chromosomes that is not sterile?

How would one species generate another? They can't.

They can't because evolution is impossible, because you cannot breed two different species where the DNA in the chromosomes of two different species does not match up.

The Socialist Joe Stalin, and the Communist Party in Russia were very much "into" evolution - it explained everything for them, because it was "scientific". Adolph Hitler was also Socialist, or "National Socialist", and believed in evolution, but he was not as crazy as Stalin.

For the Communist party believed that they could engineer a "super soldier" by crossing an ape with a human. They sent a team to Africa, and of course, it did not work. Because evolution does not work. (And I try not to visualize how the experiment was carried out.)

But this crackpot theory of "evolution" of Stalin and Hitler was the "scientific" basis for both the Communist (International Socialist), and Nazi (National Socialist) parties. Evolution meant that they could kill anyone to "improve the species", as man did not have a soul, and there is no afterlife or judgement. After all, "science" has proven this concept, and it is now a "fact".

How many people have died from these regimes that were founded on the theory of Evolution? How many died in the camps, or on the battlefields, of those governments founded on evolution as a "scientific fact"?

Yeah, I don't know, Ken. I think you are grasping at straws here. I have shown you that the theory of evolution is impossible, and you have to resort to something that supposedly happened millions of years ago. I think you ran out of soap.

Well, at least you gave an answer. Most "scientists" won't answer you at all when it comes to the TENETs of their faith. So I do appreciate your answer.

What is amazing is that "modern science" believes in "evolution", without proof of any kind that evolution is the true origin of the species, and to top it off, they claim that it happened by random chance.

Yet, when someone says that the origin of the species came by intelligent design, they ridicule you for being "unlearned" because you have no proof.

Science really is a cult that has taken over the world. Just like in the day of Galileo or Semmelweis, anyone who opposes their theories is destroyed.

And entropy trumps evolution every time.

Here is the 5th tenet of Evolution, that is, unlimited time with no entropy.

"Given enough time, a monkey can randomly type on a keyboard the Encyclopedia Britannica." But long before that time, the monkey would die, and the keyboard would fall apart.

"Given enough time, a monkey can suck the Atlantic Ocean through a straw". But the monkey's kidneys would fail before that happened.

Given enough time, you can throw pieces of metal into the air, and they will randomly assemble into a watch. But the metal will turn into dust before that happens.

Given enough time, a living cell with DNA strands will self assemble. It will be able to draw energy from its environment, so it must crack the problem of photosynthesis, and it must be able to reproduce itself. And then it has to be able to mutate into all of the different forms of life on earth. But there is no entropy that will keep this from happening.

Give me a break. Evolution is the stupidest idea ever created by very desperate "scientists" to explain that there is no Creator.

[Ken]

Have you seen any new species lately? No. There is your proof. The mechanism of creating new species does not exist in nature. It exists only in the mind of the "evolutionists".

Yes, there are new species emerging all the time and old species going extinct. The flora and fauna today are dramatically different than the biological communities that existed during the Pleistocene (ice ages) or before.

Why can't a male donkey (62 chromosomes) and a female horse (64 chromosomes) create a new "mule" species (63 chromosomes) that is not sterile?

Why can't a lion and a tiger, who both have 38 chromosomes, create a new "Liger" or "Tion" species of 38 chromosomes that is not sterile?

How would one species generate another? They can't.

They can't because evolution is impossible, because you cannot breed two different species where the DNA in the chromosomes of two different species does not match up.

None of that is relevant because evolution isn't about the creation of hybrids between two existing species. It is about the four tenets that I described above. Generally it occurs in two ways: (1) either an existing species changes over time to the point that it can be considered a new and different species from its ancestral form. Or (2) an existing species diverges into two new species, usually due to things like population separation where one half of a population migrates in one direction and the other half in a different direction and then over time the two isolated populations evolve in different directions to do different ecosystems or conditions.

Under the theory of evolution, new species are not formed by creating hybrids between two different species. That is not to say such a thing is impossible or could never occur. But rather, that isn't part of evolution by natural section. It would be a different process, not evolution.

Yeah, I don't know, Ken. I think you are grasping at straws here. I have shown you that the theory of evolution is impossible, and you have to resort to something that supposedly happened millions of years ago. I think you ran out of soap.

Well, at least you gave an answer. Most "scientists" won't answer you at all when it comes to the TENETs of their faith. So I do appreciate your answer.

None of your examples of hybridization have anything to do with evolution. Hybridization isn't part of the theory of evolution.

What is amazing is that "modern science" believes in "evolution", without proof of any kind that evolution is the true origin of the species, and to top it off, they claim that it happened by random chance.

And entropy trumps evolution every time.

Here is the 5th tenet of Evolution, that is, unlimited time with no entropy.

There isn't anything random about evolution except for the background rate of mutations. Evolution is very much not by chance. It is due to selective pressures that favor certain traits over others.

And entropy is not relevant because the earth is not a closed system. Enormous amounts of solar energy reach the earth every moment which is the engine of life via photosynthesis. Whether or not you believe in evolution. If you turned off the sun then yes, entropy would extinguish life on earth very rapidly. But as long as the sun keeps shining we get new energy every day.

Give me a break. Evolution is the stupidest idea ever created by very desperate "scientists" to explain that there is no Creator.

If you say so. But I don't think I'm the one who is sounding desperate here.

[JohnHurt]

Yes, there are new species emerging all the time and old species going extinct. The flora and fauna today are dramatically different than the biological communities that existed during the Pleistocene (ice ages) or before.

Yes, but how does one species create a new species?

I agree with you that after some event, like the catastrophe that ended the Pleistocene and started the Holocene, there are new species of plants and animals that are produced. What is the mechanism?

Why can we not see the mechanism of species generation working today? If it truly is "random chance", then why don't we see all of the "failed attempts" of evolution to create an upward mutation? Because the "random chance" of Evolution is not involved in the process of species creation.

They can only suggest that evolution is the source of new species at some distant point in the past. They cannot prove that it happened then, because it obviously is not visible now.

None of that is relevant because evolution isn't about the creation of hybrids between two existing species. It is about the four tenets that I described above. Generally it occurs in two ways: (1) either an existing species changes over time to the point that it can be considered a new and different species from its ancestral form. Or (2) an existing species diverges into two new species, usually due to things like population separation where one half of a population migrates in one direction and the other half in a different direction and then over time the two isolated populations evolve in different directions to do different ecosystems or conditions.

Under the theory of evolution, new species are not formed by creating hybrids between two different species. That is not to say such a thing is impossible or could never occur. But rather, that isn't part of evolution by natural section. It would be a different process, not evolution.

So how are new species formed?

Here is a definition of species:

A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction

So one species cannot breed with another species. You need a male and a female to produce offspring for a new species, and evolution "at best" could only produce a single individual of a new species at a time, like once every MILLION years.

So if an older species could create a newer species through "evolution", the new species - by definition = cannot breed back to the older species. When a new species is created, it needs both a male and a female of the species for offspring to occur. And when these offspring of the new species reach maturity, they need other, unrelated offspring of the same species to mate with so that inbreeding will not be a problem. So, an entire community of the new species needs to be created at the same time. Evolution cannot do this.

Since "evolution" relies on "random chance" (given enough time, it can happen) of creating only a single individual, this makes the "miracle" of creating a community of an entirely new species from an older species impossible.

The creation of a new species is not "slow change", but a discrete "jump", such as from a chimpanzee with 48 chromosomes - to create a human with 46 chromosomes. You don't slowly evolve from the number 48 to 46, it is a jump. So there is no real "evolving" at all. There is only "intelligent design" that could facilitate a jump like this.

Intelligent design answers this problem of creating a new species, while evolution cannot. Intelligent Design is a workable theory, while evolution is a flawed hypothesis.

It is like my old 1969 Ford Mustang. Each year, a new and slightly different Ford Mustang would be produced. So someone could imagine that the 1969 Ford Mustang produced the 1970 Mustang, and then 1971, 72, 73 "by evolution" or slow change. And each year, the Ford Mustang evolved from its parents due to the "natural selection" pressure of people purchasing vehicles in the car markets.

But the correct answer is that the reason the Ford Mustang "evolved" into a better vehicle each year is that it was produced by the same design team that kept improving the design.

Likewise a designer is behind the similarities of the gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and other apes to the improved design of a human. One species could not have possibly created the next species, for the reasons I have given. These similarities that people ascribe to evolution are all obviously the work of the same designer.

The evolutionists really play us for fools, and we are quite gullible, or at least most of us.

Here is an example:

The cannabis plant is perfectly matched to the human nerve receptors, and is really a "cure all" medicinal plant. They discovered the "Endo-Cannabinoid System" and mapped how CBG, CBD, and all of the other attributes of this plant can help people with Parkinson's disease, Lupus, convulsions, skin cancer, and a host of other ailments.

So how is the cannabis plant perfectly matched to the human body? The correct answer is that God made it for us to use a medicine (and not to just smoke it, duh!)

But what do the "Modern Scientists" who support "evolution" say about this perfect match between cannabis and humans?

They said that millions of years ago, there was a sea slug that was part plant, and part animal. And this slug split into a plant and animal. And then over "MILLIONS OF YEARS", the plant sea slug and the animal sea slug each evolved into the cannabis plant and into humans. And this is why the cannabis plant is perfectly matched to the Endo-Cannabinoid system in humans, as it kept these receptors intact through MILLIONS OF YEARS of evolution so that it still perfectly matches to the receptors of a human.

Do you really believe that to be true?

Hmmmmmmmm?

I think we all live in the "Dark Ages" now. We are under the control of some sort of "science cult" that wants to replace God with something else. They are not "scientific" at all, just really good liars. And they have deceived the entire world with their lies.

Take care, I appreciate what you have said, and it was very nice to discuss this with you.

John Hurt

[Ken]

Yes, there are new species emerging all the time and old species going extinct. The flora and fauna today are dramatically different than the biological communities that existed during the Pleistocene (ice ages) or before.

Yes, but how does one species create a new species?

I agree with you that after some event, like the catastrophe that ended the Pleistocene and started the Holocene, there are new species of plants and animals that are produced. What is the mechanism?

The mechanism is natural selection. Which operates just like the artificial selection process that produced hundreds of breeds of dogs from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane. And that has produced hundreds of varieties of apples and tomatoes. Nature can impose just as much more MORE selective pressure on a population as humans can through selective breeding. And nature has much longer time periods of time in which to operate.

A new species is created over long periods of time in generally two ways:

First there can be branching speciation which actually takes several forms. But generally a single population splits into two through some geographic separation like a mountain range or body of water or simply distance. And the two separate species evolve in different directions due to different selective pressures at play. For example, in the arctic, one ancestral population of bears may separate into a polar species adapted to living on sea ice and feeding on seals and becomes white as that provides camouflage when hunting seals on ice. And a separate population living in more inland areas develops or stays brown and is more adapted to eating berries and catching salmon in streams. Over millions of years of time these two populations become separate species.

Then there is what I'm calling linear evolution where a single species may change over time due to changing conditions such that it eventually becomes so different from its ancestral form that it can be considered a new species. The evolution of the horse might be an example of this. In such a case, where you draw the dividing line into two separate species is inherently artificial. It is just one population that is slowly changing over time.

There various technical terms for these processes, I'm just generalizing here.

Why can we not see the mechanism of species generation working today? If it truly is "random chance", then why don't we see all of the "failed attempts" of evolution to create an upward mutation? Because the "random chance" of Evolution is not involved in the process of species creation.

They can only suggest that evolution is the source of new species at some distant point in the past. They cannot prove that it happened then, because it obviously is not visible now.

We do see natural selection happening all the time all around us. Roundup resistant weeds are a perfect example. They didn't exist decades ago.
Another example is how many fish populations are producing smaller fish because the commercial fishing pressure is selecting out the larger individuals.

If you care to research the topic you will find a vast number of species are changing in response to our changing environment.

Here is an example:

The cannabis plant is perfectly matched to the human nerve receptors, and is really a "cure all" medicinal plant. They discovered the "Endo-Cannabinoid System" and mapped how CBG, CBD, and all of the other attributes of this plant can help people with Parkinson's disease, Lupus, convulsions, skin cancer, and a host of other ailments.

So how is the cannabis plant perfectly matched to the human body? The correct answer is that God made it for us to use a medicine (and not to just smoke it, duh!)

But what do the "Modern Scientists" who support "evolution" say about this perfect match between cannabis and humans?

Cannabis is actually a perfect example of evolution through the process of selection. Although in this case it is not natural selection but selective breeding or artificial selection. The cannabis available in the market today is VASTLY different from ancestral wild forms of hemp. Humans have been breeding cannabis for increased THC and other qualities for decades. The pot today is vastly different and more powerful than what was around in the 1960s and even more different from what was available in say the 19th century. That is change or "evolution" although in this case due to selection by humans not nature.

[ken_sylvania]

Another example is how many fish populations are producing smaller fish because the commercial fishing pressure is selecting out the larger individuals.

And here I had thought that fish produce smaller fish as part of the reproduction of life, and that it has been happening since long before Adam launched his first commercial fishing venture.

BTW, Roundup-resistant weeds became that way because of a defect and loss of genetic information.

[Ken]

Another example is how many fish populations are producing smaller fish because the commercial fishing pressure is selecting out the larger individuals.

And here I had thought that fish produce smaller fish as part of the reproduction of life, and that it has been happening since long before Adam launched his first commercial fishing venture.

Joke if you want. But this is a real phenomenon: https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/anima ... aller.html

BTW, Roundup-resistant weeds became that way because of a defect and loss of genetic information.

There are actually a lot of different weed species that are independently developing resistance to Roundup through a variety of mechanisms. In any event, what you are describing is mutation which is, in fact, one of the mechanisms of evolution: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... sistance1/

[JohnHurt]

The mechanism is natural selection. Which operates just like the artificial selection process that produced hundreds of breeds of dogs from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane. And that has produced hundreds of varieties of apples and tomatoes. Nature can impose just as much more MORE selective pressure on a population as humans can through selective breeding. And nature has much longer time periods of time in which to operate.

The different breeds of dogs are all the same species. All apples are the same species. All tomatoes are the same speices. Yes, natural selection can occur within a species.

So how is a new species created?

A new species is created over long periods of time in generally two ways:

First there can be branching speciation which actually takes several forms. But generally a single population splits into two through some geographic separation like a mountain range or body of water or simply distance. And the two separate species evolve in different directions due to different selective pressures at play. For example, in the arctic, one ancestral population of bears may separate into a polar species adapted to living on sea ice and feeding on seals and becomes white as that provides camouflage when hunting seals on ice. And a separate population living in more inland areas develops or stays brown and is more adapted to eating berries and catching salmon in streams. Over millions of years of time these two populations become separate species.

Then there is what I'm calling linear evolution where a single species may change over time due to changing conditions such that it eventually becomes so different from its ancestral form that it can be considered a new species. The evolution of the horse might be an example of this. In such a case, where you draw the dividing line into two separate species is inherently artificial. It is just one population that is slowly changing over time.

A species is defined as:

A species (pl. species) is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Polar bears and brown bears can mate and if they are able to create fertile offspring, then, by definition, then are the same species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E ... ear_hybrid

There is no proof that the horse became a different species "over time". They need some sort of "proof" before they make these statements. This type of deliberate deception is spoken with "great authority" by the "Science Cult", and I can understand how many people can believe this nonsense. After all, they are wearing lab coats, and act like they know what they are doing. But they don't. They are charlatans.

They have no proof that one species can create another species. No proof at all.

Here are the facts of life:

A new species cannot mate with the older species that "evolution" claims created it. So both a male and female of the new species have to be created at the same time and place by evolution, which is impossible.

Even the Genesis account of creation is smarter than these dumb scientists on this issue, as God Knew He had to create a female (Eve) from the same DNA as the male (Adam) in order to create a new species. Genesis 2:18-23

So it looks like Creationism wins this round, Ken. The score is: Evolution 0, Intelligent Design +1.

This ridiculous "Cult of Modern Science" has no answer for how a male and female of a new species can be created in the same place and time by a different species, so that the new species can mate and have offspring.

Also, "evolution" depends on the spontaneous generation of life to create the first living cell from which they claim all other live "evolved".

Spontaneous Generation was what every "scientist" believed was the mechanism that produced all life before the mid 19th century.

Here is what these same crazy "scientists" now say about "spontaneous generation":

Spontaneous generation is a superseded scientific theory that held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. It was hypothesized that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. The doctrine of spontaneous generation was coherently synthesized by the Greek philosopher and naturalist Aristotle, who compiled and expanded the work of earlier natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations for the appearance of organisms. Spontaneous generation was taken as scientific fact for two millennia. Though challenged in the 17th and 18th centuries by the experiments of the Italian biologists Francesco Redi and Lazzaro Spallanzani, it was not discredited until the work of the French chemist Louis Pasteur and the Irish physicist John Tyndall in the mid-19th century.

Rejection of spontaneous generation is no longer controversial among biologists. By the middle of the 19th century, experiments by Pasteur and others were considered to have disproven the traditional theory of spontaneous generation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Yet, they still believe Spontaneous Generation created the very first cell.

When Spontaneous Generation was discredited in the 1800's, that is time when they came up with the Theory of Evolution. I suppose they were desperate and needed a new theory that did not include "God".

So this "scientific" or whatever "theory of evolution" still depends on the debunked "scientific" theory of spontaneous generation to explain how life started? Is that what they are telling us? And they are the same "scientists" that reject Spontaneous Generation and at the same time embrace Evolution? What pills are they on?

I think Genesis 1 and the Hand of the Creator is a much better explanation for the origin of life. There has to be intelligent design for life to function as it does. There is no spontaneous generation of life, now, or at any time. Evolution is a lie.

Looks like evolution lost that one too. There is no Spontaneous Generation of life to create the first cell that Evolution requires. Even "scientists" know that to be true.

So now the game score is: Evolution 0, Intelligent Design +2

And there are many, many more flaws with evolution, like how entropy destroys whatever evolution tries to build. The theory that "random chance" can build anything meaningful in a short period of time before entropy destroys it is absolutely ridiculous.

Ask Dr. Frankenstein if he could actually build a human from "re-used" body parts before it turned into a rotting corpse. In real life, no one can re-use dead organs because of entropy. Entropy defeats evolution every time. Cells break down faster than they can assimilate through random chance, or even if they used to work at one time, entropy beats that too. Random chance could never produce a cell.

So with Entropy "having a go" at Evolution and trouncing it thoroughly, it looks like the score is now: Evolution 0, Intelligent Design +3

I think "science" needs to come over to the "winning side" on this issue.

What about you?

Do you want to believe in "fairy tales" like evolution can create a male and female at the same time? So you still believe in the Spontaneous Generation of Life? Is there any proof that a cell can self assemble through random chance faster than entropy can destroy it?

I sympathize and know some people have to teach Evolution as part of their job.

I just don't see how they can keep a straight face while they do it. I would bust out laughing and get fired.

[Soloist]

John, ever heard “you catch more flies with honey”?

You could lay off the scoreboard and your mockery if you actually want a reasonable discussion otherwise it’s just you grandstanding for attention.

[Ken]

John.

Much as you might want it to be the case, there isn't some competition between evolution and creationism. Nor is there some "dogma" of evolution that scientists "believe" in. Nor are scientists trying to disprove creationism. Just like they aren't trying to prove or disprove the origin myths from any other ancient culture from the Greeks and Egyptians to the Navajo or Australian aborigines.

First of all, it is utterly absurd to concede that the four basic TENETS of evolution can produce genetic change in a population, but then claim that such change is constrained to within some artificial boundaries of a current and existing species. To claim, for example, that a population of butterflies, or flower, or bird can change due to natural selection, but that there is some artificial boundary that they run up against called "species" that halts change from going any further.

The notion of species itself is something of an artificial or human construct and the result of the need for humans to constantly categorize and classify things. In the natural world there is no master list of species complete with Latin names. Humans just made all that up. There is just an amazing diversity of life that is constantly changing. The definition of species you found by googling is also just a general lay definition and not one necessarily used by science. There are hundreds of known hybrid offspring between species and some of them are, indeed, fertile. For example, fertile canid hybrids occur between coyotes, wolves, dingoes, jackals and domestic dogs yet they are all considered separate species.

Often, two different populations are genetically isolated by means other than chromosomal incompatibility. Two bird species might use different mating calls, or habit different types of trees or elevation in a forest and therefore never interbreed even if it was genetically possible to do so. Or two different populations might be geographically separated such that they never interbreed and might be considered different species. Scientists don't go around test-breeding together different wild populations of plants, insects, birds, etc. to determine if they are distinct species or not. They simply observe their traits and population behavior (do they freely interbreed in natures) and more recently do gene sequencing. And there are frequently scientific arguments about whether X and Y are different species, different genera, different subspecies or simply different subpopulations of the same species. And such arguments aren't resolved by test-breeding to see if fertile hybrid offspring are produced.

I'm also not sure why you are off on a tangent about abiogenesis. The theory of evolution by natural selection isn't some master "theory of everything" that explains all the mysteries of life. Far from it. The theory of evolution by natural selection simply explains how life changes over time, including both the appearance of new species and the disappearance of old species due to changing conditions and habitats on earth. And despite your assertions to the contrary, evidence for evolution is everywhere around us and constantly being confirmed by new scientific techniques such as genome sequencing. Which confirms older forms of scientific evidence such as the fossil record, morphology, embryology, and observation that scientists used before the technology of whole genome sequencing was possible. The evidence for evolution is vast and diverse and everywhere around us should you choose to look.

Yes, there are separate discussions and scientific theorizing about how life first emerged on earth. But it is all theoretical since the earth is so constantly changing geologically and such events would have occurred so far in the distant past that there are no remnants of evidence left in any fossil record. Nor would there be for such microscopic organisms. The oldest known fossils are of cyanobacteria found in Australia in rocks dated back to about 3.5 billion years old. And rocks that old on earth are extremely rare since most of the rock from that time period has long ago been recycled away through geological processes. That is about 50-times older than the Grand Canyon, for example.

Could life on earth have emerged through natural processes? Scientists have demonstrated how complex organic molecules like amino acids can be created from smaller inorganic elements and molecules under the conditions that are believed to have existed on the ancient earth (lots of lightning, methane gasses, ammonia, water, etc.). Which is frankly not implausible when you step back to think about it. Organic molecules are formed from the same elements and through the same chemical bonding as inorganic molecules. But yes, it is true that no one has created living organisms from non-living molecules in the laboratory.

And even if they were able to do so, that wouldn't actually resolve any debates about the origin of life on earth. It would simply mean that our science has "evolved" to the point that we are sophisticated enough to construct living organisms at the molecular level. It wouldn't mean that such processes were the same as those that existed 3.6 billion years ago. So scientifically speaking, the origin of life on earth is still a big mystery and probably always will be. Could it have emerged through natural processes? Could ancient aliens have seeded our proto-earth billions of years ago as they traveled around the universe seeding likely planets with the elements of life like some ancient gardeners? Some science fiction writers think so. Could a supernatural being or God have seeded the ancient earth with life? Science doesn't actually have any answers to those questions and likely never will absent the invention of some time machine that lets us rewind the earth's history to go back and look.

That is the sort of thing that actually makes science interesting. The fact that there is so much more that we DON'T know than we do know. And that is true of every single branch of science from physics to biology to medicine. Every answer to an existing question simply reveals two more new questions to answer. Otherwise, science would simply be an exercise in reading dusty old scrolls to memorize a finite and unchanging set of facts and answers.