Unfalsifiable theories etc,

The Challenge

The Origin of Life

Origin of life 2"

Does only Life begets life?

The DNA Program

Computer Basics

DNA Code.
Program Coding

Simple Statistics

Why Statistics?


< > Energy

A Beginning?

A Adam and Eve?

The jungle


Who Is Jesus

Life a Coincidence

Something Out Of Nothing?


Who Ts Jesus


About Us



The Lightening

A Challenge : Answers to the Index to Creationist Claims

Read and study the answers given in the " INDEX TO CREATIONIST CLAIMS", including this site's opposing arguments. It is interesting that many of the claims made to contradict a creator, conceded that something like the Christian God might exist. However if the Christian God does exist their views about creation are not valid. The GOD Paul decribed to the citizens of Athens (Acts 17) are the Creator of evryting. This counter their claims to be not atheistic or not completely atheistic.

The first few answers given to counter the the views expressed in the "INDEX" , are more about evolution than creation. There is contradictions in the answers given in the "INDEX" The "INDEX" also coceded that evolution doesn't exclude a God, but it seems to promote a view that evolution of life exclude a creator( or creators) and was unguided evolutionary process.

An analog will be to regard the evolution of aviation as an unguided evolutionary process, although the common designs that keep occuring in aviation, point to intelligence.

People believing that life's history ( evolution) was a spontaneous process prefer not to use the term "common design" but prefer "common descent".

Is there really a difference or does the difference only exsts in the mind of the beholder?. Especially C++ and Java programming use the term "inherence" frequently. The same thing. DO NOT WAISTE ENERGY BY KEEPING ON tp REINVENt THE WHEEL

Read and then decide scepticaally and not cynically about the probababiliies for a real creator versus a completely spontneous creation and a subsequent spontaneous evelutionary event.

Index to Creationist Claims answered

Response 4 claim CA114.

Claim CA114:

There have been many famous scientists who believed in special creation in the past. particular, the following scientists were creationists:

Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)

Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)

Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)

Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)

David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)

Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)

Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)

Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)

John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)

Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)

William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)

James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)

Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)

Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)

Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)

Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)

Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)

James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)

Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)

William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)

John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)

Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)

Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)

George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)

Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)

John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)

Agassiz, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Dawson, Virchow, Fabre, and Fleming were strong opponents of evolution.


Morris, Henry M. 1982. Bible-believing scientists of the past. Impact 103 (Jan.),

Index Response:

1 The validity of evolution rests on what the evidence says, not on what people say. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution and no valid arguments against it.

2(i) Many of the scientists in the above list lived before the theory of evolution was even proposed. Others knew the theory, but were not familiar with all the evidence for it. Evolution is outside the field of most of those scientists.

2(ii) A couple hundred years ago, before the theory of evolution was developed and evidence for it was presented, virtually all scientists were creationists, including scientists in relevant fields such as biology and geology. Today, virtually all relevant scientists accept evolution. Such a turnabout could only be caused by overwhelming evidence. The alternative -- that almost all scientists today are thoroughly incompetent -- is preposterous.

3 Even if they did not believe in evolution, all these scientists were firmly committed to the scientific method, including methodological naturalism. They actually serve as counterexamples to the common creationist claim that a naturalistic practice of science is atheistic.

4 Evolution is entirely consistent with a belief in God, including even "special creation." Special creation need not refer to the creation of every animal; it can refer simply to creation of the universe, of the first life, or of the human soul, for example. Many of the above scientists were not creationists in the sense that Henry Morris uses the term.

Counter response.

1. Evolution of life can also be called the history of life. The support for evolution rest only on historical support like any historical event..

2, Evolution is just a description of historical events, . The theory of evolution is a belief that it occurred spontaneously without any intelligent guidance. Compare it with the history (evolution ) of aviation. There is no evidence that life advanced spontaneously without any form of intelligent interference, as isthe case in the evolution of aviation. The history of evolution doesn’t exclude Devine interference.

The scientific support referred to is not natural science evidence, but historical based support.

3. It is very difficult to apply the scientific method to historical events. Antibiotic resistance among bacteria is always used as a scientific method support of spontaneous evolution. The discovery at the Lechuguilla Cave, located within Carlsbad Caverns National Park (USA) of 4 ½ million old isolated bacteria with antibiotic resistance to most modern antibiotics counteract the claim that antibiotic resistence gives scientific support for spontaneous evolution.

“This work demonstrates that antibiotic resistance is widespread in the environment even in the absence of anthropogenic antibiotic use. Lechuguilla Cave represents a remarkable ecosystem that has been isolated for millions of years, well before the clinical and agricultural use of antibiotics”

“Antibiotic resistance is ancient and widespread in environmental bacteria”

4 This answer to Creationist Claims actually support the probablty creationism It is just an attempt to contradict Henry Morris. .

Counter claim by answers : Evolution of life is more about the history of life. Even the chemistry involved is only of historical value. The history of evolution of life and similarities observed in the chemical history of life do not deny or support the probability of a special creator . The history t just observe the presence of a common designs or as evolutionists prefer, common descent . Is their really any difference between the two terms.. The difference is only in pthe world views of the users Inheritance is also another term that could be used and that is actual used in computer programming, espeecial in the C++ an Java programming languages.

EVOLUTION ( spontaneous advancement of life) is more a about certain view or belief about the history of life , namely the spontaneous onset and advancement of life.


Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave Microbiome Kirandeep Bhullar, Nicholas Waglechner, Andrew Pawlowski, Kalinka Koteva, Eric D. Banks, Michael D. Johnston, Hazel A. Barton, Gerard D. Wright Published: April 11, 2012 Claim CB000:

. “This work demonstrates that antibiotic resistance is widespread in the environment even in the absence of anthropogenic antibiotic use. Lechuguilla Cave represents a remarkable ecosystem that has been isolated for millions of years, well before the clinical and agricultural use of antibiotics”

A diverse intrinsic antibiotic resistome from a cave bacterium Andrew C. Pawlowski, Wenliang Wang, Kalinka Koteva, Hazel A. Barton, Andrew G. McArthur & Gerard D. Wright Nature Communications volume 7, Article number: 13803 (2016) | Download Citation

“Antibiotic resistance is ancient and widespread in environmental bacteria”

Compare also with Claim CA602


Claim CA602

Claim CA602:

Evolution is atheistic.


Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 215.

Index Response:

1 For a claim that is so obviously false, it gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a God, but it does not rule one out either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, and so forth.

2 Many, perhaps most, evolutionists are not atheists. If you take the claim seriously, you must claim that the following people are atheists, to give just a few examples:

3 Sir Ronald Fisher -- the most distinguished theoretical biologist in the history of evolutionary thought. He was also a Christian (a member of the Church of England) and a conservative whose social views were somewhere to the right of Louis XIV. Pope John Paul II -- a social conservative.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin -- a paleontologist and priest who taught that God guided evolution.

President Jimmy Carter -- a devout and active Southern Baptist.

More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

Anyone worried about atheism should be more concerned about creationism. Creationism can lead to a crisis of faith when people discover that its claims are false and its tactics frequently dishonest. This has led some people to abandon religion altogether (Greene n.d.). It has led others to a qualitatively different understanding of Christianity (Morton 2000).

By saying that only one religious interpretation is correct and universal, creationism typically is a rejection of every other religious interpretation. For example, young-earth creationists reject the religious interpretation that the universe is more than 10,000 years old (Sarfati 2004), and design theorists reject the idea that God has guided evolution (Dembski 1996). For people whose beliefs about God differ from those of a creationist, that creationism might just as well be atheistic.


NCSE. n.d. Voices for evolution: Statements from religious organizations.


Clergy Letter Project. 2005. An open letter concerning religion and science.

Dembski, William A. 1996. What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design. Greene, Todd S. n.d. My motivation.

Sarfati, Jonathan. 2004. Refuting Compromise. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

Morton, Glenn R. 2000. The transformation of a Young-earth Creationist. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 52(2): 81-83.

Further Reading:

Ruse, Michael. 2001. Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Counter response

1,Believing in God, in most cases imply believing in a Creator. The so called impersonal God is possible , but is it probable that a super intelligent creating entity won’t have any interest his creation. ( its creation if you prefer). An intelligence without any inereist in what is created, doesn’t make any sense. 2 Somebody that believes in God , has no choice , but to believe in a creating God. This also implies a belief that the history of life was either programmed , guided or both. One of their references taught guided evolution , that is a belief equal to a belief in a Creator.

“Pierre Teilhard de Chardin -- a paleontologist and priest who taught that God guided evolution”

This claim is therefore not so obviously false as the index’s response implies.

Which God?

Most probaby the the God Paul proclaimed in Acts 17 .Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus


Claim CB000:

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.


Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38. ,P> Index Response:

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Counter response

An intensive study of “ spontaneous abiogenesis “ will indicate that the scientific view prior to Pasteur and others who doubted the probability was that decaying organic material was responsible for life’s existence.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the vertiginous rise of chemistry had introduced terms like crystallization, explosions and spontaneous chemical reactions into the scientific vocabulary. It did not seem that farfetched to imagine that organic molecules could similarly organize, crystallize and react to give rise to living organisms. An exact copy of the present postulation of abiogenesis. (Ecept for the continues occur abiogenesis).

The law of biogenesis is also currently commonly referred to aso: all life from cells, all cells from cells. The anti creation view added the following “ it is clear (from the history of life) that the law of biogenesis was it least once violated during a specific time in earth’s history ( about 4 ½ billion years ago)

2. DNA and RNA are non living molecules outside living cells. They need a living cell with functional cellular machinery to decipher and execute the code that they carry. The only exception is in well controlled conditions in laboratories and only by using chemicals that didn’t exist on the a-biotic primitive earth (lifeless earth). (example PCR (polymerase chain reaction ) used in DNA identification).

According to the present abiogenist theory the replicating molecules had the abilty to act as living molecules with the ability to evolve into cells.. The fact that they lost this ability when cells “evolved” doesn’t make sense and cast doubt on this hypothesis.

3. Abiogenis is a specifide subdivision of spontaneous generation of life, defined as sponaeous generation or beginning of a life giving process that occurred during special conditions during a realtive short period in earth’s history, with replicating molecules as the starting point.

4 . The fact that the final replicationg molecules have lost their functionality to live outside living cells and can be regarded as non living entitiees outside living cells is , is a scientific method contradiction about the replicating living molecule theory. The living molecules are only alive in living cells.

5. The Press Release announcing the 2015 Novel Laureates for Chemistry acknowledge that DNA need proofreading and error correction ,without which life would probably be impossible.

According to present theories this implies a type of foreknowledge for replicating molecules that preceded DNA , had to possessed. Otherwise how did the proofreading and code correction molecules evolved on a very unstable code copying system?

6. The minimal cell created in the laboratories of the J Craig Venter Institutes laboratories indicated that a cell needs a critical minimum amount of genetic material to be able to survive.


Claim CB010:

The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. (See also Primitive cells arising by chance.)


Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.

Index Response:

1.The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

2,The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.


Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations.

Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions.


Spotts, Peter N. 2001. Raw materials for life may predate Earth's formation. The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 30, 2001.


1.“The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously”

The statement’s “innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously” is a possibility but not a probability according to present knowledge.

Getting innumerable trials together is rather difficult without the cells machinery as the following quote indicates “ While scientist have figured out how to connect a chain of several amino acids, a typical protein has thousands of residues connected in series. Furthermore, the reaction favors individual amino acids and takes quite a bit of activation energy to do. Therefore, creating proteins without enzymes is not easy.”

Quote from the following link that gives an easy understandable summary of the peptide bonds involved in protein synthesis. Compare it with any Biochemistry Text Book.

Rather difficult to accomplice outside living cells.

2. For practical purposes every reaction in biochemstry need a catalyst to occur at the fast rate nenecessary fo sustain life. A lego of reactions occor every millisecond in a livng cell and all ( or the mast majority) need catalu=yst in the form of enzymes ( the majority) or ribozymes.The only known factories able to produce enzymes in large quantities are living cells. This scientific fact decreased the probability of spontaneous evolution of enough ribozymes and enzyme to devolop spontaneously in the absence of livng cells.


Claim CB010.2:

The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)


Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.

Index Response:

Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.

Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).

This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:

Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.

Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.

Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.

Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.

The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).

Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall. Something that no one has thought of yet.


Robinson, Richard. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks. PLoS Biology 3(11): e396.


Ball, Philip. 2001. Missing links made simple. Nature Science Update (15 Mar.).

Cairn-Smith, A. G. 1985. Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press. de Duve, Christian. 1995a. The beginnings of life on earth. American Scientist 83: 428-437. Fox, S. W. 1960. How did life begin? Science 132: 200-208.

Fox, S. W. 1984. Creationism and evolutionary protobiogenesis. In: Science and Creationism, ed. A. Montagu, Oxford University Press, pp. 194-239.

Fox, S. W. and K. Dose. 1977. Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Revised ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Fox, S. W. et al. 1995. Experimental retracement of the origins of a protocell: It was also a protoneuron. In Ponnamperuma, C. and J. Chela-Flores, pp. 17-36.

Huber, Claudia, Wolfgang Eisenreich, Stefan Hecht and Günter Wächtershäuser. 2003. A possible primordial peptide cycle. Science 301: 938-940.

Lee, D. H. et al. 1996. A self-replicating peptide. Nature 382: 525-528.

Martin, W. and M. J. Russell. 2003. (see below)

Nelson, Kevin E., M. Levy and S. L. Miller. 2000. Peptide nucleic acids rather than RNA may have been the first genetic molecule. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97: 3868-3871.

Ponnamperuma, C. and J. Chela-Flores (eds.). 1995. Chemical Evolution: Structure and Model of the First Cell. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pappelis, A. and S. W. Fox. 1995. Domain protolife: Protocells and metaprotocells within thermal protein matrices. In Ponnamperuma, C. and Chela-Flores, pp. 129-132.

Russell, M. J. and A. J. Hall. 1997. The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front. Journal of the Geological Society of London 154: 377-402.

Smith, J. V., F. P. Arnold Jr., I. Parsons, and M. R. Lee. 1999. Biochemical evolution III: Polymerization on organophilic silica-rich surfaces, crystal-chemical modeling, formation of first cells, and geological clues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 96(7): 3479-3485.

Tamura, K. and P. Schimmel. 2001. Oligonucleotide-directed peptide synthesis in a ribosome- and ribozyme-free system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 1393-1397.

Wächtershäuser, Günter. 2000. Life as we don't know it. Science 289: 1307-1308.

Further Reading:

Fry, Iris. 2000. The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Cohen, Phil. 1996. Let there be life. New Scientist 151 (6 July): 22-27.

de Duve, Christian. 1995a. (see above)

de Duve, Christian. 1995b. Vital Dust: Life as a cosmic imperative. New York: Basic Books.

Fox, S. 1988. The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution from the Inside. New York: Basic Books.

Lacey, J. C., N. S. Wickramasinghe, and G. W. Cook. 1992. Experimental studies on the origin of the genetic code and the process of protein synthesis: A review update. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 22(5): 243-275. (technical)

Lewis, Ricki. 1997. Scientists debate RNA's role at beginning of life on earth. The Scientist 11(7) (31 Mar.): 11. (registration required), or

Martin, W. and M. J. Russell. 2003. On the origins of cells: A hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philosophical Transactions, Biological Sciences 358: 59-85. (technical)

McClendon, John H. 1999. The origin of life. Earth-Science Reviews 47: 71-93. (technical)

Orgel, L. E. 1994. The origin of life on the earth. Scientific American 271(4) (Oct): 76-83.

Pigliucci, Massimo. 1999. Where do we come from? a humbling look at the biology of life's origin. Skeptical Inquirer 23(5): 21-27.

Russell, Michael. 2003. Evolution: Five big questions: 1. How did life begin? New Scientist 178(2399) (14 June): 33-34.

Willis, Peter. 1997. Turning a corner in the search for the origin of life. Santa Fe Institute Bulletin 12(2). Previous Claim: CB010.1 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CB015 created 2001-3-31, modified 2005-12-14

COUNTER RESPONSE 1.Biochemistry is not chance, but biochemistry depends on catalysts known as ribozymes and enzymes . Without ribozymes and and enzymes biochemistry would be virtual impossible in nature. It is possible that some biochemical reactions could have occurred spontaneously with our the help catalysts on the primitive earth but a a very slow pace.

2. Self replicators : All the known self replicators ( DNA and RNA ) are only (in nature) able to replicate while in living cells. ( well controlled laboratory environments that probably didn’t exist on the primitive earth and are the only known exceptions.).

3. Genetic memory is a requirement for cellular life,OWe didn;t make any high way since the 1950s regarding the origin of the genetic code without which cellular life would be impossible.

4. Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres. The “might well be called alive’. Really? The only living entity on this planet is living cells. Not even DNA and RNA are regarded as living molecules outside living cells.

Cells are one of the characteristics we use to define whether something is alive or not. A living creatures are made of cells, from the tiniest bacteria to the largest animals and plants. Cells are the "building blocks" of life, and all have RNA and DNA in them and a membrane around the outside.. The only example of something "alive" without cells might be viruses, which are just packets of RNA or DNA.. Most scientists agree that they are more like particles, and don't really consider them living things.

All known life only exists inside living cells.

5. It seems that this Claim was compiled during the early 2000s. It seems that we are moving backward instead of forward in providing evidence that support the spontaneous onset of life.

6. The problem that none of Index’s reference solve is:

(i) Why did the the replication “living” molecules lost their ability to be deciphered and executed with the advent of the liivng cell , if they were theimportant molecules bring life to the non-living.

How did the proofreading and error coercion machismo evolved ? They are present in the genetic code on the DNA molecules. DNA molecules that were probably not stable enough to allow spontaneous evolution of the error correction machinery. Refer to the Press Release that announced the 2015 Chemistry nobel Laureates .