Comment: that's kinda the problem here...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Give me this rather than a (see in situ)

that's kinda the problem here...

Science doesn't have a viable way to explain how life began. Evolution can only be used to explain how certain species came about, and what we tend to be given as an alternative to creation is a dressed up version of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was a theory that existed in the dark ages to explain how maggots got on meat and other small life suddenly came into existence because we didn't have microscopes to see fly eggs and such. The basic gist of it was "They just sort of appeared there because they have a tendency to" or "They were hidden within the meat the whole time and just now came out" like animals are secretly filled with maggots or something. What we are told when we ask where life comes from with science is similar. "It just sort of happened because conditions were right," never minding that they don't really know what conditions would have needed to be for such a thing because science cannot know by definition.

Every theory that i've heard tends to invoke Spontaneous Generation in some way. Many don't think so but they don't turn back the clock enough on it. "We came from one celled organisms..." which came from where? "Bacteria from space seeded the planet." Bacteria from where and how did they form? Seriously there isn't even a viable way to naturally create amino acids that doesn't use an atmosphere you'd more likely find on Neptune. Science fails on origins and until it makes a time machine so they can actually go back and observe it, it will always fail. Spontaneous Generation should never be used as a cop out to save the dogmas of science.

Matthew 10:16