//FINAL SCORE: Science 1 / Religion 0//

Sorry, flat-Earthers are disqualified from refereeing on science vs. religion matches because of their inherent bias against science. And because they're appallingly stupid. A re-match will need to be held with a competent umpire before the result can be declared.

To Banjo Paterson.

As far as I can tell, life isn't an inevitable event. As for death. That seems more like a type of an event. We are only born one way, but we can die several ways from an accident, a sickness, or old age. It's inevitable because how it happens covers several different kinds of events. Life as I understand it doesn't happen that way.

If scientists create life from no living matter, that would give the idea more credit that it could happen out of chance. Possibly if the conditions were right, then life would have just happened and chance would be a smaller variable. However until such a finding is made, I have to go with what I see. Life is fragile and needs protecting to survive. Often needs protecting before the new life is even born or hatched.

As for the God hypothesis. I'm not worried, because He isn't a hypothesis.

To Yuyutsu,

Sometimes your perspective shocks me. You're views on suicide and the value of protecting life are so different from mine, because it sounds like a key you don't think it should be protected or even be a concern.

As for the interpretation in Genesis. In the book of Job when God finally responded to Job, some of what He said makes it clear that He had a more personal involvement in shaping the world and making the creatures in it, then just to make space for it. As for the bible its of. I hold it as reliable. If God ever has a hand in saying something to us, then it's worth listening to and relying on

To Opinion.

" Lost the plot," "final score?"

Are these your gifted debate skills at work? Just throwing more assertions out there when I've countered your points on water feeders with both scientific views and religious views?

"The only evidence or theoretical basis you can put forward for a religious view of Life (the entity) is that you have an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-caring God,"

Ignoring the fact that you're ignoring what else I have said (possibly because you can't counter it or refute it); if all I have is God as my evidence, then I have more then enough evidence as a whole. God isn't a theory, or a hypothesis.

//Life is fragile and needs protecting to survive.//

Oh yeah? Tell that to Deinococcus radiodurans, a bacteria that can survive cold, dehydration, vacuum, acid... and being zapped with 500,000 rad. That's a lot of radiation, dude. You and I would die if we got hit with a 1000 rad.

Not_Now.Soon: You say, "If scientists create life from no living matter, that would give the idea more credit that it could happen out of chance."

It might surprise you but depending on how you define "living" this had been done! Way back in the 1950's even.

In the early 50's Thomas King and Robert Briggs preformed a nuclear transplantation of a frog egg cell and very soon after work was extended by the Nobel prize winner the John Gurdon. Basically they cloned frogs. Further development of this sort of science led to the creation of first cloned mammal "Dolly the Sheep" which you may have heard of.

In the initial nuclear transplantation experiments, a nucleus from one mature frog cell was taken and inserted into an enucleated egg cell (ie. an egg that had its nucleus removed). Now, many would say that neither a nucleus nor a cell missing its nucleus can be said to be "living". Thus these experiments created life when they combined the two.

But what you may find even more surprising is in the last ten years the first synthetic bacterial species, Mycoplasma laboratorium, was created by using a completely mad-made chromosome (but they used the existing machinery of another bacterial cell to create the first instance of the new species). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology#Synthetic_life

Mr Opinion: The scientific method, besides its foundational assumptions, only deals with that that can be measured/observed in the "natural world"* and it doesn't have anything to say about anything outside this. Hence, in the commonly held view, science cannot say anything about the notion of "nothing". The video I linked to previously explains the main problem with the concept of "nothing" clearly.

I should mention though that I was actually quite surprised that you used the "nothing comes from nothing" statement in an argument against the existence of god. Because this claim very often forms the starting premise for many arguemnts, going back a very, very long time, that theists use to prove god. This is why in the video that I linked to the atheists are arguing against the absolute truth of this claim.

*[PS: I personally have a non-standard differing view of the distinction between the natural and supernatural from that of many scientists.]