============DISCLAIMER============= I'd rather have this thread die than descend into an anti-Evolution manifesto, as per the other Evolution thread. If you just want to talk about the number of animals that fit on the ark or how the Bible is the root of all wisdom, PLEASE do so elswhere. I invite all people with rational, intelligent thoughts to participate. I invite (read: implore) a moderator to remove all terribly disrupting posts into another thread, at their discression. ============DISCLAIMER============= The disclaimer, of course, won't work. On this I will bet money. This is the question. If you are of the school of thought that Evolution must be false because we have never synthesized "life" from chemicals in the lab, what level of proof do you require? The issue at the heart of the matter is the nature of "life". If, for example, you only require life to be "self-replicating", then the debate is over---such chemicals have been produced in the laboratory. For example: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&id=782280 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/20/12733.pdf If, however, you have some more complex or stringent definition, you should attempt to justify why this definition is better than simply the requirement that a thing be self-replicating. (For example, does "life" need to be carbon based?) The claim is that the simplest life is only self-replicating, and in this sense Evolution is proven. Conversely, if this does not suffice as proof, then any requirements placed on Evolution are too stringent. For example, if one will only accept the appearance of cellular structures in a lab, which are hypothesized to have formed over millions of years, then Evolution will never be proved, as such levels of proof are a priori are untenable.