Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[RoadRunner79]

I would say that it would be stretching it to say that science, can "prove" any such thing.  

I am curious.... are you claiming that which is non-living, cannot become alive?

Don't start again with your reading what you want into what I say to turn it into something you think you have an argument for 

And note I was clear "at our present evolutionary stage" " produce the birth of a human child without sperm"

I am noticing a trend, with your starting assumptions, and how you begin a conversation with me.

But I wonder what you think that it is that I am reading into it, and what you are implying that I am trying to manipulate into a different argument?

I am taking issue with the word "prove" in your statement.   Science can tell you what is normative, or possibilities based on what is thought should happen.   It may be able to make inferences, but I don't think it can come to a deductive proof, especially with an outside agent involved.

Perhaps you could clarify on what you thing that science has "proved" in this matter?

Also I would like to repeat my other question, of "are you claiming that which is non-living, cannot become alive?" Or basically just asking why behind your claim.