Artifical life

I don't see what evidence this event gives to either side, intelligent design, or Darwinism. (you'll notice that I prefer the word Darwinism, has less baggage. There are multiple types of evolution, and evolution doesn't have to be inconsistent with design.)The cell was created by an intelligent person, using already existing code. Therefore this doesn't show that life can arise from non-living matter. It hasn't evolved into something more than what it is yet (and they obviously don't expect it to, since they included watermarks, which would be distorted in the case of a mutation) Therefore it doesn't support Darwinism.If anything, I see that it took our intelligent species years to be able to replicate a very basic cell using coding that already existed and was already known, while an Atheistic Darwinist theory would suggest that such an event could have occurred by complete random chance out of non-living matter.

I could not remember the term abiogenesis, so I used the term atheistic Darwinism instead. because Darwinism without a creator involved would require abiogenesis. I know that ToE is used to explain diversity of life, but I prefer Darwinism, since plain evolution and ToE often get mistaken for one another.ToE is what it is, a theory, however it is in its own since, a belief, since while widely accepted, is very controversial, and does not have any substantial proof.Note that my whole post wasn't just about the origin of life, all I was trying to say, is that it does not give any evidence to support abiogenesis or ToE.

you are extremely wrong on the controversy of the science, and btw, Darwinism is a widely accepted term for ToE. No informed person would disagree that some things have changed over time, however I completely reject the idea that all the complexity and diversity we see today was created by mutation and natural selection.I'll read that site in time, but as for now I will simply place one of my own evidences against evolution. irreducible complexity. The flagellar motor is a good example of irreducible complexity. If you were to remove one piece from it, it would stop working. The odds of such genetic mutations taking place to create all those proteins at once are so high, it's impossible.also, the Cambrian explosion is quite a problem in the fossil record...

I'll ignore most of your useless comments and move on to what you said about chemistry not being completely random. I would love to hear you explain how the first cell could have arisen without a creator, or random chance.