orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Lol, I agree with that, but that is not the point of contention, Oro.
You originally said that scientists had been able to develop self-generating DNA in the lab, and that simply is not true.
Here is the exchange.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...oves-metapysical-nauralism-4.html#post8860492
And again, no they have not.
Don't get me wrong; I think one day we will be able to do this. I do not think it is something that is 'magical' nor was it a miracle at life's inception.
I just think it is an enormously complex process that we wont divine for another century, frankly.
But if and when that happens it will be intelligence that does it. As for the notion that life to not begin by a supernatural creative event, i.e., "miracle": that implies that life can arise in the first place via strictly natural processes and mechanisms. Sorry, but the research resoundingly disputes that pipedream. Do you mean something else by that term.
Once science c an replicate a process, then that process is no longer miraculous (as it does not break natural laws) but is instead providential (God acting through natural processes and laws).
For example, I think the Big Bang to be a providential act, not a miracle, though plainly inspired by God and caused by God.
And your evidence that it is "plainly inspired by God and caused by God" is?