Evidence God Exists: Part II

[AngelThMan]

Abiogenesis discredited. 500 years of experiments have failed to produce life out of inanimate matter. Scientists make excuse that the earth would have to be in the same condition as it was billions of years ago for life to be produced. And that’s just what it is. An excuse after so many experiments failed. So where does life comes from if there is no God? Evolution explains the development of life, or how it evolved from point A to point B. It doesn’t explain the origin. How life itself started. Scientists' many attempts recently to synthesize ribonucleotides have failed...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...z0mbAXSyts

The lack of evidence for abiogenesis is my evidence. And for those of you who start dismissing this as non-evidence, then you need to remember that what I’m presenting is a result of centuries of experiments by scientists. Therefore, it is evidence.

As always, only respectful replies will be addressed. Light bantering, criticism and snide remarks are okay. I make them, too, and it’s part of the fun. But no obscenities or name-calling. Most of you did pretty well with respect to that on the previous thread, and for that I thank you.

[Paul the Human]

The failure to explain or duplicate the genesis of life on this planet through scientific experimentation is not evidence that god exists. It is evidence that scientists have yet to discover the answer. That doesn't mean the answer is god, but neither does it mean the answer is not god. Jumping to the conclusion that, since science has yet to find the answer... the answer must be goddidit... is simply magical thinking.

[Minimalist]

This promises to be every bit as stupid as your last attempt.

Don't you ever get tired of looking like a fool?

[downbeatplumb]

Welcome to 'god of the gaps' country.

[Paul the Human]

God of the Gaps = The Still Unknown

There are fewer and fewer gaps. I'm sad that I will likely be long dead before there is nowhere left for this God of the Gaps to hide.

[Craveman]

I agree with Paul the Human.

Just because science can't explain it (yet) doesn't mean that magic man dunnit...

[tavarish]

This is obvious evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists and did indeed will us into existence in one of her celestial dreams.

[Ace Otana]

So have I got this right? Science fails to archive something or is found to be in error of something and this then becomes evidence for god?

Huh? Where is the logic in that?
Seriously.

[Minimalist]

What is fascinating is that he posted an article which notes:

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

and then claims that his sky daddy did it, anyway.

You know what, Angel, you keep believing that god played in the dirt and made you. Leave the heavy thinking to those who can handle it.

[Darwinian]

Abiogenesis discredited. 500 years of experiments have failed to produce life out of inanimate matter. Scientists make excuse that the earth would have to be in the same condition as it was billions of years ago for life to be produced. And that’s just what it is. An excuse after so many experiments failed. So where does life comes from if there is no God? Evolution explains the development of life, or how it evolved from point A to point B. It doesn’t explain the origin. How life itself started. Scientists many attempts recently to synthesize ribonucleotides have failed...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...z0mbAXSyts

The lack of evidence for abiogenesis is my evidence. And for those of you who start dismissing this as non-evidence, then you need to remember that what I’m presenting is a result of centuries of experiments by scientists. Therefore, it is evidence.

As always, only respectful replies will be addressed. Light bantering, criticism and snide remarks are okay. I make them, too, and it’s part of the fun. But no obscenities or name-calling. Most of you did pretty well with respect to that on the previous thread, and for that I thank you.

First of all, it is not up to you to dictate how or with what tone other members choose to reply. If a post is deemed unsuitable then it will be dealt with by the moderators or admins.

Secondly, a lack of evidence for abiogenesis simply means that we (those who study these things) have yet to make that all important discovery. After all, we have only been investigating the matter for a few centuries which, considering the mammoth task and the vast timescales involved, is not a terribly long period of time. It is no doubt the case that the very techniques required for such a discovery are only now being developed and understood. It must also be understood that while 'we' have not actually proven our theory we are increasingly narrowing in on it and understand what should be involved far better than you imagine.

Also, just as the current state of our expanding Universe points back to the unavoidable conclusion of the big bang, evolution itself (which is of course scientific fact) inevitably point back to the unmistakable signature of a single and first organism, i.e. a self replicating chemical process.

A lack of evidence for any particular theory being used as evidence itself against or, as evidence for a rival theory is very dangerous especially if the proponent himself can claim no positive evidence. You are basically saying that because 'we' cannot conclusively prove our case the default must therefore be that your case is true, even though you may have as little or even less evidence to support it.

Therefore, to state that abiogenesis is discredited simply because a mechanism has yet to be discovered is irrational and unscientific. There are no time limits to science, if there were, many people who are living happy and healthy lives today would not have survived as the medical world would have given up on trying to perfect transplant surgery long ago and the whole theory would have been discredited.

In conclusion, I find your post and its assertions to be wanting and ill conceived and dismiss it as not worthy for the discussion of learned men.