*Fact:all scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.
*question:what is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?
*fact:researchers have created in the laboratory the enviromental conditions that they believed existed early in earths historynin these experiments a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.
*question:if the chemicals in the experiment represents the early earth's atmosphere and the molecules produced represents the building blocks of life,whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent?does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?
what takes greater faith-to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is a product of an intelligent mind?
similarly,if scientist ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing-but would they prove that the cell could be made by chance?if anything,they would prove the very opposite,would they not?
what is your opinion?

if it takes an intelligent entity to create and program a lifeless robot,what would it take to create a living cell ,let alone a human?

DoctorAshley: *Fact:all scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.

All the scientific research? Really? The people who you said conducted experiments and manufactured some molecules found in living things, are they welders or scientists? The research has not been concluded please.

*question:what is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?

Once you agree that life has an origin, it follows that it could not have come from living matter. Would you rather have them suggest that life came from living chemicals?

*fact:researchers have created in the laboratory the enviromental conditions that they believed existed early in earths historynin these experiments a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.
*question:if the chemicals in the experiment represents the early earth's atmosphere and the molecules produced represents the building blocks of life,whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent?does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

This is merely a matter of interpretation. I'll pick blind chance. Man has been recreating naturally occurring elements for a while now, anyway. Diamonds, water, etc. Nobody accuses him of playing God when he recreates any of these things. Why take exception when it comes to life?
On a side note, do you think that 'chance' is actually a real thing, or is everything already predetermined?

what takes greater faith-to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is a product of an intelligent mind?

Let me put it in a clearer way:

what takes greater faith to believe, that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or that they were designed by a intricately coordinated and supremely complex creator who came from nothing?

You didn't even take into account the fact that the first life forms are said to be simple. They became complex through evolution.

similarly,if scientist ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing-but would they prove that the cell could be made by chance?if anything,they would prove the very opposite,would they not?
what is your opinion?

As long as there are things in this world that come about by chance, I think it'll prove that life came by chance.