And the stupid seem to enjoy digging themselves yet deeper into their mire of dogshit. They seem quite good at it, don't they, Legba?
Oh, yes; check this out:
Religion and science are two separate realms.
Well, the idea that there is a strict demarcation between religion & science is yet another symptom of Atheist's brain-damage, emotional immaturity & inability to think holistically...
Well, it is my opinion that science is the best and most reliable method to ascertain information about reality. However, if you want to go further, into the realm of metaphysics, then science specifically forbids itself from it, and you are free to use whatever you want, but proving the validity of such results becomes practically impossible. I happen not to believe in any such claim, so it is incredibly meaningless to me to discuss such things.
But we already knew that.
Anyhoo; if there is no Creator, then Life must have arisen through scientific principles, yes?
A Creator could have created life through purelly real methods, but I agree that religions don't generally accept this principle. Catholics are on the verge, though, since they generally accept science, interpreting scripture as a poetic, not literal, view of creation. I'm fine with that, or the idea that a omniscient god is obviously intelligent enough to creat a universe with laws such that life eventually arises on Earth, but I find those ideas pointless, since there is no way to distinguish a creator-less universe and a created universe in this manner.
And one of the first rules of science
Oh boy, here we go. Hold on, Im going to look this up on the Index of Creationist Claims. Let me guess: "You didnt personally witness it therefore it isn't science" right? I think that one was CA221.
is that it must be Repeatable & Observable.
No surprise, you got your science wrong. What the scientific method requires is that observations must be repeatable, NOT the events themselves. An example:
I see a corpse below a building. I look up and find out that the window is open. I go to the flat and there are cleaning paraphernalia near the window. The window is wet, and a cheap plastic stall is broken near it. It also seems like there is blood at the lower portion of the frame. Given all that, I am justified in making the hypothesis that the person fell down the window due to a broken stall, predict that they suffered from typical fall trauma, and I can also predict that, analyzing the stall's position, and the corpse's distance to the building, the blood came from their knees being hit by the lower frame as they fell. I then go to the corpse, and check that, indeed, it suffered from fall trauma, but it wasn't the knees that were hit, and instead there are strange bleeding marks on the hands. Then I might hypothesize that it was the hands that were cut, as the victim tried to stop itself from falling. Forensic analisys might then confirm or disprove my hypothesis, BUT: did you noticed? The original point stands. All evidence we found pointed towards the "falling person" hypothesis, even if specific details are still being determined. There is no single point of data that seems to even challenge it. So here's the question. If we can't throw this person again down this window, how do we know that it happened? Well, that's because what we need is repeatable OBSERVATIONS, not EVENTS. EVERYONE can go to the scene and see the evidence. The forensic material was published and is open for everyone to examine.
On the other hand, if I was to say that all that happened, but then someone came to the scene, and tried looking for blood, but
"Oh, I cleaned it all up"
Then searched evidence for a death in the appartment
"We moved another couple to the flat"
Checked the windowframe for evidence of damage
"We replaced it"
We even search the death records in the city
"They were secretly buried up on an unknown place and disintegrated so that no one will ever find them"
And then we ask the janitor, and he tells us he doesnt recall all of that ever happening
We have NO EVIDENCE to test. It doesnt matter to us that he publishes a paper on this case if there was no evidence for any other investigator to check. The observations are not repeatable.
So; here is your task, Atheists:
*Take basic materials from the periodic table, plus some plasma, & Create me a Microbe via the scientific method.
*Do not get back to me until you have.
Thank you please!
The scientific method is not a way of "creating things", nor was the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans elemental at the time of the origin of life (water isn't an element dude, cmon now). Many organic compounds, and many inorganic ones, were present at that time. The specifical composition is now thought to be more or less understood, but this is still a young field, and caution must be exercised, so it's perfectly fine to say that we don't know that. Nevertheless, that is a moot point, since we now know that basic organic compounds can come about from natural atmospheres and ocean compositions, even if we don't know the exact composition. It can happen in atmosphere X, so it is at least possible it happened on Earth.
Furthermore, abiogenesis isn't evolution. Abiogenesis is still a very young field, with not all the knowdlege we wish it had. Evolution, however, is a theory, with proven facts, and stabilished laws. Even if life was created by a magical being, that lifeform or lifeforms must have followed the princeples of natural selection, laws of genetics, and the concept of evolution at some point, since we KNOW that all lifeforms we have been able to test and investigate enough DO follow this principle.
In any case, all this rant is moot, since even if both evolution and abiogenesis were wrong, that doesn't prove a god. We could have been created by an alien race, born on a planet were evolution was possible, then seeded here. Or maybe there is a trascendental creator that seeds life, but has no quality considerable godlike except being eternal.
Or maybe the burden of proof is on the claimant, and you shouldn't believe that god created life until that has been proved.