Science doesn't say that we arrived here by spontaneous generation.
well here is my definition of "spontaneous generation"
Spontaneous Generation:
The idea that living creatures can be produced naturally from non-living substances.It is important to note that science has never observed such an occurrence.
There are two forms of spontaneous generation theories:
(a) Heterogenesis life coming from dead organic matter.
(b) Abiogenesis life coming from inorganic matter.
So When science only has theories that include "spontaneous generation","abiogenisis" or any of the others that say that life started by itself then it does say that life started spontaneously "ya know like it happened with no intelligent help" so let me reword that for you so there is no misunderstanding:
"science has stated that most evidence shows that we did not get here by other than intelligent design, but despite this evidence, it states, "Yet here we are as a result of other than intelligent design."
Despite the tremendous complexity and complete scientific evidence against the spontaneous generation of life, scientists continue to insist that somehow life did come out of the randomness of dead matter. They dont know how, but they have faith that given time they will find the answer. All experiments, however, through electrical sparks and all other added factors have only produced "a tarry sludge.".The reason why evolutionary scientists hold onto the theory of spontaneous generation so tenaciously is because of their undying belief that all that exists is matter and its motion. It is based on their philosophy of life, not due to the scientific evidence at hand.
So science has taken it upon itself to limit the possibilities of our begining, which is not the way true science is supposed to work. The only things that are ruled out by a true science are those that have been proven wrong, futhermore the inability of science to recognize "intelligent design" because it is biblically oriented also keeps it from looking at the possibility that another lifeform may have seeded this planet with life of thier own design which should also be considered as our history has many instances that make it look like we have been visited by extraterestrials.
The science you follow and promote is biased from the start so your conclusions can only be according to the ruleset allowed, which is why there are so many wild and crazy theories that can't be backed up by real scientific evidence.
The calculations which I have seen which supposedly support that evolution didn't happen forgets too many important variables.
Then why don't we layout our own study and its probabilities with what we do know and see what the numbers look like?
The relationship between DNA and protein is very complicated.... There is nothing existing in matter to bring about these relationships.
I noticed you didn't give a reply to the above statement but I will expand what was meant by it anyway;
There is a relationship between DNA and protein which until now has been described as a "Chicken and Egg" problem. In reality, this problem is a problem of "Irreducible Complexity". i.e. protein depends on DNA for its formation, and , you guessed it, DNA depends on protein for its formation. This leaves us with two independently complex objects, which are interdependent, and if you remove either object the purpose and mechanism of the other's existence is thwarted. This is an "Irreducibly Complex" system.
Go back in time with me for a moment to the alleged origin of the first strand of DNA, or the origin of the first protein. If these two are truly interdependent and they are, how is it they could have arose independently of each other? It surely must stretch your imagination to construct a workable scenario.
Here are a couple of brief descriptions of this problem from the Scientific world:
"All known life revolves around the cozy accommodation between DNA and proteins: the software and the hardware. Each needs the other. So which came first? We have already encountered this sort of chicken-and-egg paradox in chapter 2, concerning the so-called error catastrophe that limits the number of copy mistakes in genetic replication, but the problem is much more general. There seems to be an enigmatic circularity to life, a type of irreducible complexity that some people regard as utterly mysterious." Paul Davies, "The Fifth Miracle," Simon & Schuster, 1999, pg. 124
"The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile." John C. Walton (Lecturer in Chemistry, University of St. Andrews Fife, Scotland), "Organization and the Origin of Life," Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30-31
if not one of these(Proteins,NucleicAcidDNA,RNA),Polysaccharide,Carbohydrates,Lipids)have ever been produced by man in a laboratory because their construction is very complex, (and we do know the exact formulation of each one) then how did nature do it on accident?
your theory that mother nature could kick our butts is not a plausible excuse from a scientific standpoint since the theory is that random chemicals converged to formulate the beginning chemicals of life, If these chemicals could be produced naturally on accident then scientist should be able to do the same thing on purpose seeing as how they can control every aspect of it.
END PART 1