Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Minimalist]

Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to find out something about it before you pontificate on the subject.

That would take all the fun out of it for him.

As it stands, you're just making yourself look stupid.

Success is rare for him.

[WingedFoe]

The scientific community has accepted the fact that abiogenesis in its old form has been debunked. They have moved on to what they term the 'modern hypothesis of abiogenesis,' in which life emerged only once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Yes, science scrapped spontaneous generation in favor of heredity. We found out that fully-formed, relatively complex organisms like insects and modern-day microbes DON'T just appear from nothing. Like I said, this view is archaic - these are the guys with wooden wings strapped to their arms trying to fly. Pointing at them and saying "haha, science got it wrong!" is just the same as pointing at alchemy and saying chemistry is useless; it's irrelevant because they were so ill-informed back then.

The point is science is no longer trying to replicate abiogenesis in its old form. Craig Venter et al. are trying to create artificial life, which is different from abiogenesis, in which life emerged from inanimate matter.

Yes, it would be different from the theory of abiogenesis - which addresses how life on earth started - in that the processes behind creating artificial life would not be the same as those when life naturally arises. One requires evolution, the other requires a creator (us). However, the end product is functionally the same: a single-celled organism capable of replication and evolution.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that you would not consider artificial life as life?

[WingedFoe]

Reading over some more of your posts, I think some of your confusion stems from the fact that the latest breakthrough by Venter's team involved using a preexisting cell as a host for their artificial genome. It's true that this is not creating life from scratch in the strictest sense of the term. It's more like creating the "brain" of the cell from scratch, and putting it into a natural cell "body."

However, there are scientists attempting to go further. Here's the abstract from a scientific article (from '06) that gives a basic game-plan of how a fully-functional cell could be made from scratch, organelles and membrane included:

Construction of a chemical system capable of replication and evolution, fed only by small molecule nutrients, is now conceivable. This could be achieved by stepwise integration of decades of work on the reconstitution of DNA, RNA and protein syntheses from pure components. Such a minimal cell project would initially define the components sufficient for each subsystem, allow detailed kinetic analyses and lead to improved in vitro methods for synthesis of biopolymers, therapeutics and biosensors. Completion would yield a functionally and structurally understood self-replicating biosystem. Safety concerns for synthetic life will be alleviated by extreme dependence on elaborate laboratory reagents and conditions for viability. Our proposed minimal genome is 113 kbp long and contains 151 genes. We detail building blocks already in place and major hurdles to overcome for completion.

http://www.nature.com/msb/journal/v2/n1/...00090.html

We have the basic knowledge needed to create life, and we have scientists working right now at making it a reality. Venter's recent success, if anything, tells us that we are getting really close. We aren't there yet, I'll give you that, but can you really outright deny the possibility that an organic cell could be made entirely from inorganic matter?

[Purple Rabbit]

...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...

500 years is enough time. Most experiments would be deemed failures after a fraction of that time. But scientist, particularly atheist scientists, will continue to try to prove abiogenesis for a million years. Anything but consider the possibility that life was originated by God.

Enough time indeed. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth a rough 4.5 billion years. That makes 9.2 billion years of divine arse sitting before even attempting some thoughts on genesis! Hear hear, the holy lord of procrastination has arrived...

[Minimalist]

Anything but consider the possibility that life was originated by God.

Yeah, because that idea is just fucking stupid.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hey, it may be a fucking stupid possibility, but at least(!) it's a possibility!

EvF

[Minimalist]

It's a possibility IF they can establish that there is a god in the first place. Last I looked they were a long way from doing that.

[Edwardo Piet]

So basically, it's a possibility IF it's possible that it's (possibly) a possibility!

I guess.

EvF

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Anything but consider the possibility that life was originated by God.

As it turns out,a goodly number of members here are former theists.

I was brought up devout Catholic,reading the the Bible at 12, Aquinas at 16 and Mulla Sadra at 38. I left the Church at 20. It took me another 20 years to become an atheist. During that 20 years I asked questions yet received no answers which made sense. I searched for proof ,of gods,the soul, the supernatural,the paranormal,and found none.

My search included a decade at University studying other cultures and beliefs.(probably why I'm so dismissive of the widespread anti Muslim hysteria,not uncommon ever here)

My atheism is the result of a painful journey to an inescapable conclusion, it is not a choice. I will sometimes discuss things with a rational theist ,such as Tacky,but he's an exception. The rest come across as close minded ignoramuses (ignorami?) who lack even a sound knowledge base of their own faith,having apparently tried to learn by osmosis and failed.

[Welsh cake]

500 years is enough time. Most experiments would be deemed failures after a fraction of that time. But scientist, particularly atheist scientists, will continue to try to prove abiogenesis for a million years. Anything but consider the possibility that life was originated by God.

Many of us here are former-theists (gasp!) so it may come as a surprise to you that we've considered that possibility before deconverting. Here's the thing though, have you ever considered that the universe, the cosmos, life as we know it, is merely a dream inside the subconscious of the infinite Invisible Pink Unicorn?

How about if our lives are merely a video game reality and the only way we'll escape this simulation is if we die?

Have you once spared a thought for a race of 4th dimensional aliens who created an intergalactic zoo, called it "Earth", filled it with various species from across the galaxy including us, and now watch us constantly from afar to see if we'll ever figure out that our lives are nothing more than the "Truman Show for E.T"?

Without evidence, without demonstration of proof, what reason does anyone have to think anyone of these ideas, including your god concept, is actually remotely true?

Atheists are so quick to support, and even staunchly believe in, the hypothesis of abiogenesis, which is based on unfounded theories, and yet attack theists for believing in a deity who supposedly lacks evidence.

A creator deity who lacks evidence, not "supposedly lacks". All you've demonstrated on this thread is that you honestly have no idea what atheism is, what scientists actually do, how the scientific method operates, or the fundamental difference between hypothesises and theories.

Why don't you actually commit yourself to some serious intensive study for a change, instead of mentally masturbating with your imaginary friend for one moment?