(May 23, 2010 at 1:23 pm)Watson Wrote: @ Paul- I know you can't manipulate the world on a molecular level or create genetics of any kind on your own. What I am suggesting is that, if there was a human being capable of that, would it still be magical just because he did it without tools or equipment, or is it scientific because there was a natural explanation for what he did? Or, is it both? Magic with a scientific explanation does not negate the fact that it is magic.
If there is a scientific explanation for something... it is, by definition, not magic. No man will ever speak the words, "Let there be life!" and have it work. That would be magic. If a man someday created life from scratch without the use of tools beyond his own hands and mind, and could scientifically explain how he did it... and then do it again... and then other people duplicate it... it is science... not magic.
(May 23, 2010 at 1:23 pm)Watson Wrote: As for supporting the idea of whether a God was necessary or not, I don't think it supports the antithesis at all. In my mind, it simply proves that a.) a sentient consciousness had to be present in the formation of life from nothing, and/or b.) that it is possible in the first place to create life from nothing.
What it would demonstrate is that the proper ingredients, in the proper situation, can combine to become life. Based on what we know about the workings of the universe, it is then likely that something similar could happen without any external input from a sentient source. In other words, no creator deities were necessary to 'wish' life into the universe and that it is a highly unlikely scenario.
My original point (in my first post to Angel about this) is that he clings to the belief that science will never create life from scratch, because it runs counter to his belief in god. But... if it were to ever happen, he would be able to make excuses and justifications that allow him to dismiss it and continue believing in god. So why bother?
