But while we're here and we've already pointed out why you're wrong here (again), we may as well take care of the rest of your postHere you are completely misleading, there is no known process whereby inanimate chemistry
But how can life produce life when there was no life prior to 4 billion years ago?produces life, reproduction is a characteristic of already existing life!
And the theory of evolution doesn't have to worry about the origin of life.It has , as I said, nothing to do with life's origin.
But all life IS is just chemistry. If you have evidence that it is anything MORE than what is scientifically observed to be chemistry then YOU have to demonstrate that. Otherwise if chemistry can create life today (it can) then there's no reason why it couldn't back then. Of course it's always POSSIBLE that abiogenesis required intervention from an alien or magic Jew, but so far there's zero evidence they're necessary, or even exist. Plus since the universe IS finite, eventually you have no choice BUT to accept that - at some point - life came from non-life.Next
Already existing life is what's shown to produce life, you want to give the chemicals credit for what an already existing life does, Remember ! we are discussing how the first life arose! For your statement to be true,..." chemistry does in fact produce life" then you need to demonstrate an observable, testable , and repeatable experiment to demonstrate that inanimate chemical processes can create life. That is the scientific process, otherwise it's just a belief or guess.
If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, present it.
By the way, have you figured out yet how to measure the difference in complexity between a paper plane and a space shuttle?