seiler88 said:
Well if our "Brilliant Scientists" want to go after God then they are (once again) going about it in the wrong way.
Look, the big problem with Atheistic Evolution is that they can't prove that you can go from non-life to life using purely scientific means.
By definition science must be repeatable so if life arose via naturalistic means then you should be able to replicate it in a lab. Until then the atheistic theory is just as much of a faith-based position as my theistic one.
On the subject of faith, science does not 'believe', it merely strongly suspects based on what can be demonstrated to be true. In the case of abiogenesis, we can observe that life exists and infer that it must have come from somewhere. Looking back, we suspect that at one point the Earth was incapable of supporting life and from there conclude that it must have, at some point, started.
The Theist/Atheist split is on the question of whether or not a supernatural agent was causal in the development of life on Earth. Science has, at this point, proven that such an agent was unnecessary irrespective of whether or not one acted in that capacity. Organic molecules forming natural chemical chains leading to primitive life precursors and life have been quite thoroughly demonstrated at this point. We have shown that it /can/ happen, and available data suggests that primitive conditions on Earth were likely to cause it to happen in a fashion similar to some of the scenarios we've examined under laboratory conditions. There are, in fact, a number of ways in which life /could/ have formed under those conditions on Earth...what we don't know is which specific method actually occurred (including the possibility of methods unknown).
None of which 'disproves' a God of any sort. Demonstrating that the universe and it's contents can operate absent a supernatural agent does not indicate that a supernatural agent is absent...merely unnecessary to the operation of the universe.
The problem in that space is that one cannot meaningfully prove a God in the first place...God, by typical definition, requires one to be a God to be able to reliably analyze. Since we are fallible, we can easily mistake things for Godlike phenomena. The scientific method is merely a means by which we winnow out errors over time to determine to high degrees of certainty what actually is, irrespective of personal experience and beliefs.
The reason atheism increasingly coincides with scientific naturalism is that no theories concerning God hold up to scientific scrutiny. Worse, theistic claims often fly in the face of demonstrable truth. This doesn't disprove God either, but it does suggest that if there is a God we do not, as a species, know anything of substance about it.
