Points 1 and 2 I was just saying you should have included them in your argument, not that they go against what you said! Point 3, of course nobody can rule out A God. What can be ruled out is the Christian version of God (i.e. One that created the world in 6 days, etc, and answers ANY prayer). Point 4, not really. How can a theory on the origins of life fail to explain the origins of life? We know that amino acids form in space and on Earth, that the earliest life forms were single-celled organisms, that OIL can navigate a maze under certain conditions, RNA (predecessor to DNA) can form naturally, etc. And after all, all this talk of non-life to life makes no sense. DNA is just a chemical, and isn't a living thing...
I take you just believe that A God (as I said cannot be ruled out, but for which there is no evidence) and that there was a man called Jesus (not really holy, not really his son and who believed in some form/code of morality, a la Buddha)? Or is it something different still?
Damn fine read mate well done. Problem is me being ******ed it will take a couple of more read throughs before I can comment.
Ah, ok-thought it seemed a strange argument. Science tends to agree with science for it to be called science! All I'm saying is that, for the moment, the fact that organic molecules can form a closed, self-replicating system that we would class as life remains a theory, there, as of yet isn't any evidence of it. For that, all I'd like is one experiment to simulate conditions on primordial earth and produce something we would class as life, however basic that is. Then I would whole-heartedly embrace that theory, and reject God as a potential explanation. Until that happens I cannot reject God, despite my personal thoughts that abiogenesis seems far more likely. Off-topic slightly, I'm not sure if you can call RNA the predecessor to DNA, seeing as in most cases in cell biology RNA is synthesised from DNA (at least in the cases of mRNA, tRNA and siRNA and probable more cases I can't think of right now.) But then equally we don't know enough to know RNA wasn't a predecessor primordially to DNA. In fact, theres a theory I've just found which supports you here!
I didn't say you were ******ed. I surmised that you were either ******ed or not qualified to comment based on the OP's assertions. As it turns out, you qualified what you meant by "bullshit".
It wasn't even a laugh, it was the grin that has spread across my face as I sit and await your answer. A grin of anticipation.
I love science. I also have a healthy religion with the almighty. It ain't human. Have a look at paganism - Tis enlightening. *Relationship, not religion. Lager and cider has gone funny inside muh....
