Hawkins went way too far to suggest that time did not exist before our universe came to be ... the entire conclusion is based on the assumption that ours in the only universe. Frankly, it sounded totally ideologically driven. "any notion of god must be extinguished before I die"... Science says nothing of morality. Economists would probably be better apt to address the question. (and yes, I don't consider the dismal science on par with the physical ones)
It is known and proven how the building blocks of life come from inorganic matter It is known how life could have come about from non life. It is not yet known how life did come about from non life. I've said no different to that all along but if you cannot respond reasonably because you can't understand the dissimilarity between those statements, then there is simply no hope for you. You can't define God into existence because science is incomplete . Only your delusion can do that.
My work is done, you are no longer claiming you have plenty of science showing non life becoming life. Note.... I have not been trying to define God into existence. I have been "defining" random chance (as "creator" on earth) into its proper light.
Yes I am claiming plenty of science, because there is plenty of science. You've been given many links to some of it.. As I said, you seem incapable of understanding anything other than what you want to believe. It is known and proven how the building blocks of life come from inorganic matter It is known how life could have come about from non life. There is a very great deal of science fact, scientific proof ,scientific theory and scientific hypothesis connected to those statements, whether you like it, believe it , or not. "defining" a "creator" Yes exactly . It's quite clear what you have been trying to do .
Quote from stuPID: It is known how life could have come about from non life. It is not yet known how life did come about from non life. ... science is incomplete... This is what I've been saying, glad we can agree on something.
its quite clear you have no science showing life came from non life. What you have produced is a bunch of backpedaling. When you can show science which shows life evolved from non life you will no longer be a full time fraud.
stu is already trying act like his "could have come about" statement is the same as saying he has plenty of science showing how life came from non life. By the way his "could have come about" statement is a bunch of air. Scientists could just as easily say evolution could have been "directed".... oh wait, some do. Or could have come here from other planets... oh wait the founder of DNA wrote a peer reviewed paper about that.
Seeing how it is proven inorganic matter does produce the essential ingredients for life, and those ingredients do in a natural process, form all types of life on earth, your ridiculous argument is to say they must stop forming life because they came from inorganic matter. Or even more unavailingly, you say well science says they might develop into all forms of life from material which is not connected to life , if they came from other planets. Your dumb argument is tantamount to saying inorganic material can only get a little bit pregnant unless it was shagged in outer space. What exactly is your problem with life from non life as you put it. Just that the science is incomplete. Really!? Is that all?