Hang on a second. Let me get this straight. As a creationist, do you doubt that life derives its substance from chemical reactions?
It creates more questions then it answers.
A professor of mine used to tell us that a discovery ain't a discovery if it answered more questions than it created new questions. That's what science is about. You criticize one of the strengths of science as if it's a weakness. People Eating Tasty Animals
what I'm saying is that 'life' is 'more' then 'just' a string of 'chemical reactions'
But it is just a string of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions just happen to be in certain arrangements to be the result of what we would call life.
I don't understand why or how creationists have such problem understand the concept of the whole is more than the combination of its parts.
Take a house, for example. It literally is a pile of bricks and wood. It just happens to be arranged in a certain way to be more than the combination of bricks and wood.
A mountain is literally a pile of dirt and rock. It just happens to be arranged in a certain way to make it a mountain.
Stop lying to misrepresent what science says about life.
I dont doubt there are chemical reactions. But to say that chemical reactions, without any direction or manipulation, caused the first life seems to me to be bad science. If scientist have to work as hard as they do, then to think that it could have happened without intervention seems like bad science.
Stop lying to misrepresent what science says about life or abiogenesis. Aren't you afraid of the hell fire you people preach to us all the time? Or are you really a satanist posing as a christian that likes to break that commandment?