[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly.

I thought that the leading theory was after the Big Bang occurred the "right stuff" (which is the molecular make-up of our universe) allowed life to flourish.

http://www.livescience.com/strangene...ting-life.html:

Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.

Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.

If you don't discredit Evolution, then who is to say the right reaction could not have created life?

This evidence or theory does not rule out a divine creator setting life into motion, it is just is a very reasonable explanation for where life may have possibly originated.

There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility).

Just because it is nearly impossible does not make it impossible. I probably won't win the lottery, but it is possible. My understanding is this argument is difficult due to the unknown origins of the universe. So, what "hard science" supports God? Science is not looking for God, it is looking for understanding of the world around us.



I just want to say that science is not theology. Science does not seek out to disprove God, it seeks out to explain the natural phenomenons in our Universe. Science has very little stakes in the Ontological nature of our universe. Theories like Evolution (which is as much of a "Theory" as Gravity is) or the Big Bang do not discredit a divine creator that set things into motion.

Science has taken on this mistaken identity of being Anti-Religious because it has disproved a number of things firmly supported by the religious community; the world is flat, the world is the center of the universe, the sun is the center of the universe, the universe is a constant thing, evolution, etc.

But this ignores and negates the philosophical questions of existence and places the focus on Scripture or certain religious denominations. My beef with brilliant minds like Dawkins is that his wisdom is in science not philosophy, so he has NO business discussing philosophy.


EDIT: There is some new science looking at the Afterlife or Near Death Experiences...but I believe the Catholic's policy is the Afterlife is something that can only be obtained when you have truly passed. Also I believe the Bible describes the Afterlife as intangible to human thought/imagination.