All the cells were dead or manufactured, they did not use anything living. I read both articles. I guess my point of all of this is: is there anything that can be proven to you, going to make you let go of your deity?

Religion tells you it is the devils or demons or whatever's work, whenever something negates one of their beliefs. This is the catch all con. People have been trained to not think for themselves and to block all thinking. I say again you would still be worshipping a sun god and thinking the world was flat if science did not help you get this far. Oh and thank science for its research into computers, or we would not have these kind of opportunities to learn from each other. The Internet will be the downfall of religion, as it allows people to think globally.

BTW, last estimate I heard was that atheist have grown to just ove 18%. People are going to figure it out now that they know they are not alone in their doubts.

"All the cells were dead or manufactured, they did not use anything living. I read both articles."

I have quoted and shown which paragraph my quotes were coming from. Not once in either article does it state the cells are "dead", but manufactured, aka the altering of living cells, is exactly what has happened.

For crying out loud, the article says:
http://www.gizmag.com/first-syntheti...created/15165/
Paragraph under 'Figure 1'
"The complete synthetic M. mycoides genome was isolated from the yeast cell and transplanted into Mycoplasma capricolum recipient cells"

They did not create life from non-living matter, and if you wish to disagree, at least give a quote, or something to base your argument on.

True enough, but how does that say the yeast cell was a living cell? It is true, it does not say it was dead, but it does not say it was alive either. Yeast begins to die at 120 degree F. Maybe I am wrong here. I don't know all the facts and I will be the first to say that I have not yet seen this study reproduced or peer reviewed, which means these scientists say this is what happened. It is not actually a fact for me until it is peer reviewed or others can reproduce it. That is how science learns and proves things. They do have their data and it can be made available for others to try, so maybe in time we can know more.

The point is: I posted this whole thing to see how you would react to even the slightest possibility that something you believe in so dearly could be wrong. Whether it was or not is not known, but you have gone to great lengths to disprove one tiny spec of this (and you did a great job) and yet you still can’t tell me how 8 freaking people filled a boat too small to hold all the animals on the planet, food for them to survive, and were able to shovel all that crap out a tiny window on top of the darn boat. Why? It is because it can’t be explained, because this did not happen. It is a story that was told long before the bible in other religions. It is a fake. If the bible is your source of answers and truth, this defines the falseness of that very thing.

It's pretty simple really, I accept it by faith [the ark].

It is not something I try to pass off as a fact, though I do believe it happened.

What we have is a modern expectation of modern thought on an ancient text.

Today we ask: who, what, when, where, why, and how?

The ancient thought process did not.

So there are points that just can drive a person crazy trying to figure out, but is best answered:

"I don't know."

If you read into the cell article btw, you will realize they are trying to break life down into it's simplest form so they can discover just exactly what it is.

Ever try to define life? It is just about impossible. We know the difference from living and non-living matter, but that is about it.

My whole point is there is a huge difference between a religious belief and a empirical fact.

It is easy to point the finger at religion, poke holes in it's answers for very tough questions, since a religion like protestant Christianity is 'faith based' anyways.

The flip side is, the thoughts on answers to those same questions are just as unbelievable from Naturalism as they are from a Religious source. And, they should be treated as such. From Abiogenesis, to the use of Fossils as evidence for species evolving into different species, it is all just absurd and not science at all... but people believe it.

Naturalism is a philosophy that the supernatural simply does not exist. It asks for natural evidence for supernatural events, and then tries to use that same evidence to say it was not supernatural at all. Also, there is just plain blind dismissal.

It is not science that Christianity has a problem with, it is the Methodological Naturalism approach, a flawed philosophy, that is unacceptable.

Fair enough. BTW, that was awesome. Thanks for such great conversations. It was actually lots of fun and I learned alot from it.

The research is getting close to replicating abiogenesis.

The line between life and not life is fuzzier than you might think.

Interesting video clip. Thanks for posting it.

"The line between life and not life is fuzzier than you might think."

I think it is more that the definition of "life" that he gives at the end is fuzzier than you might think. Essentially what he is saying is that "life" is a liquid endothermic chemical reaction.

"So why is text books filled with Abiogenesis and common ancestor garbage that is passed of to kids as "fact", when it is not sound in any way, shape, or form?"

Do you not think genetics shows a relatedness between ALL life, that common ancestry is empirical fact? Seriously? At the molecular level ALL life is the same; It is merely phenotypic differences you perceive. And those differences are no doubt the result of the many environments in which life is found. Do you know why you're caucasion (I assume) even though you're genetic code is nearly identical to the blackest African or the most yellow Asian? Change over time, driven by environmental pressure and mutation is observable fact. It is theory, not mere hypothesis, and should be taught.
Would you really suggest teaching children that humankind was created by some hidden god, using clay and a rib? And to you this is a viable alternative to common ancestry?

Sure, there's no evidence for abiogenesis presently, and there are many competing hypotheses, but how does that elevate the god hypothesis to preferential status? It's no better an explanation to be sure. As you admit, such belief is faith based. Faith is believing in things for which there is no evidence, and so faith based belief is incompatible with scientific investigation. A god hypothesis has "the answers" prepackaged whereas scientific hypotheses say "we don't know."

Observation and occam's razor shows children that virgin birth doesn't occur, death appears permanent, snakes don't talk, two of all the world's creatures would not fit on even the most massive boat imagined (let alone would Noah be able to walk the earth gathering them!), there's no evidence for heaven or hell, homosexuals are human too, etc. etc. etc.
YET, when children ask such questions they are told to not question "god's word," just have "faith."

And your OP is about teaching "irrational" concepts?!