This is why I don't like debating religion

[DaRev]

timmah said:

dsgrue3 said:

Alara317 said:

timmah said:

Throwing in a large amount of time does not automatically make something possible. You're saying it took Billions of years for life to get where it is now, I'm saying we can't even prove that living matter can come from non-living matter, even at the single cell level.

Sure, amino acids can form, we've confirmed that. That still doesn't bridge the gap from non-living matter to living matter. There is still no scientific proof of that at all.

Inorganic chemicals created purposefully by intelligence self-replicated. Ok, so can this happen without us 'making' and 'designing' those chemicals? This still does not prove that life can come from non-life without DESIGN, since those chemicals were specifically designed by intelligent beings (so you're kind of proving my point)

RNA is self-replicating, sure, but that goes back to my point that all life is self-replicating and there is always a precurser of other, pre-existing life. The RNA cannot self-replicate unless RNA already exists.

Not a single example above shows even a single living cell coming from non-living matter.

You are aware that they've come very close to recreating albiogenesis in a lab, right?  That's where they put all the stuff theorized to be swimming the ocean diring the formative years of our planet, and expose it to the equivalent of volcanic and electric activity to make the proteins and acids combine in such a way to make rudimentary forms of life.  

Look it up, kinda devastating to the creationst's case. 

Yeah I've told him about the Miller-Urey experiment. He seems to think just because it proves that amino acids form without influence from anyone, and form based purely upon the conditions provided, that it does not refute intelligent design. lol

Proving something can happen does not prove that something else did not. Again, they produced the building blocks for life, there is still no solid scientific proof or explanation on how non-living matter became living matter. Just look at this quote from the Wikipedia page about Abiogenesis:

"From organic molecules to protocells

The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses. Some of these postulate the early appearance of nucleic acids ("genes-first") whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first ("metabolism-first"). Recently, trends are emerging to create hybrid models that combine aspects of both."

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

It's all about hypotheses, postulations, models, and ideas, so don't act like it's some concretely proven fact when there are many, many hypothesis and no concrete answers. The problem is that you come across like you have some proven fact to back up your worldview, while the scientific community has nothing but theories in reality, then turn that around to insinuate that anybody who does not share your views is basically stupid.

I've been reading your other posts in this thread and I just have to say, God bless you dude, God bless you.

Don't let them wear you out though, cause some these dudes can be really onesided, as I'm sure you've noticed. They seemingly believe that people are born Christians or Religious, and if not, they are stupid for chosing Christianity or a Religion, and cannot possibly get to that state by matters of reason, logic or evidence. Ultimately, that it's impossible for Science and Religion to exist together, as many Christians believe.

Anyways, cary on.