How do I convince my kids that God is real and science is wrong?

I read more than 100 answers to this qustion.

Reading through them I realized the real question is how to convince your

kids that God is real and the atheistic scientific interpretations is wrong.

“In science, it is important to distinguish between an observation and an interpretation. Observations are things we measure; while interpretations are the conclusions we derive from those observations. In well-designed experiments the resulting interpretations are the only possible explanations for the observations—but this is a rare occurrence. More often, alternate interpretations are possible.” (Thomas Philips

http://www.reasons.org/articles/do-you-know-the-difference-between-observation-and-interpretation-part-1 )

The first half of the 19th century was occupied with debates in biological circles about the question if life spontaneously arose from rotten meat, swamp’s mud etc. or from pre-existing life forms.

 A dilemma that exists during the early half of the 19th century until Pasteur’s famous Swan neck experiments.

“Pasteur, of course, was right, but with one major exception. If we think of contemporary organisms in the present, life begets life, and like begets like. But if we look into the past, we quickly realize that there must have been at least one time when Pasteur’s dictum did not hold. Some 3.8 to 4 billion years ago, life on Earth emerged from nonlife” (Dorit

 http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/winter-1859 )

What Dorit suggests is that life spontaneously emerged from nonlife. Is there any experimental observation that supports this conclusion?

Lets check.

The DNA molecule is not as stable as scientists originally believed.

 “Each day our DNA is damaged by UV radiation, free radicals and other carcinogenic substances, but even without such external attacks, a DNA molecule is inherently unstable. Thousands of spontaneous changes to a cell’s genome occur on a daily basis. Furthermore, defects can also arise when DNA is copied during cell division, a process that occurs several million times every day in the human body.

The reason our genetic material does not disintegrate into complete chemical chaos is that a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and repair DNA. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 awards three pioneering scientists who have mapped how several of these repair systems function at a detailed molecular level.

In the early 1970s, scientists believed that DNA was an extremely stable molecule, but Tomas Lindahl demonstrated that DNA decays at a rate that ought to have made the development of life on Earth impossible. This insight led him to discover a molecular machinery, base excision repair, which constantly counteracts the collapse of our DNA.”

(The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2015/press.html )

The scientific community was very excited about the synthetic cell that originated in the laboratories of the J Craig Venter Institute’s laboratory, but was it really a synthetic life?

No it was not.

They digitalized ( computerize) the DNA of an organism known as M mycoides. Computers were then used to copy the digitalized code back into synthetic manufactured DNA . These copies were then introduced to M capricolum . It is similar to changing a laptop running under Windows to a Macbook running under iOS , by swapping the operation systems.

“ The complete synthetic M. mycoides genome was then isolated from the yeast cell and transplanted into restriction deficient M. capricolum recipient cells (which accept the foreign DNA without breaking it down). Following uptake, the synthetic genome begins to encode all the proteins required for life, including restriction enzymes which degrade the native M. capricolum genome. recipient cells (which accept the foreign DNA without breaking it down). Following uptake, the synthetic genome begins to encode all the proteins required for life, including restriction enzymes which degrade the native M. capricolum genome.” = the beginning of ‘ JCVI- M. mycoides Syn1.0 ‘ “

[restriction deficient means : M capricolum contains ensymes that destruct foreign DNA. These enzymes were restricted and the JCVI- M. mycoides Syn1.0 genome produce its own restrictors.]

A great achievement but is was an intellectual guided and not a spontaneous event.

The JCVI- M. mycoides Syn1.0 ‘s genome has since further been manipulated . Its genome size was continuously trimmed until JCVI-Syn3.0 emerged a minimal cell.

“A minimal cell is usually defined as a cell in which all genes are essential. This definition is incomplete, because the genetic requirements for survival, and therefore the minimal genome size, depend on the environment in which the cell is grown. The work described here has been conducted in medium that supplies virtually all the small molecules required for life. A minimal genome determined under such permissive conditions should reveal a core set of environment-independent functions that are necessary and sufficient for life. Under less permissive conditions, we expect that additional genes will be required.”

(JCVI

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/minimal-cell/overview/

click full text or http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6280/aad6253.full?ijkey=77AGRUAdvXIP2&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

Minimal cell summary/

17 % appeared to be junc but aren’t .

What is life. My definition is : Life is continuous rapid occurring chemical reactions . These reactions occur at blistering speeds measured in milliseconds. The majority of these reactions will occur extremely slowly, or not at all, without enzymes and ribozymes. Life needs a code to control and guide these reactions. Without the code life is not possible.

The JCVI concedes that a cell resembles a computer.

(JCVI

“A biological cell is very much like a computer—the genome is the software that encodes the instructions of the cell and the cellular machinery is the hardware that interprets and runs the genome software”

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/minimal-cell/overview)

The big question is , is it possible for the software to function without hardware?

Viruses, both RNA and DNA are software copies but they can only operate in living cells.

The same applies to naked DNA and RNA . ( viral DNA and RNA are coated with a protein or protein lipid layer to protect the nucleic acid of the virus.) The code contained on naked nucleic acids can only be execute

I just touched the subject of the mystery of life , not even mentioning the problems about racemic mixtures, homochirality , enantiometric cross inhibition, the development of software (Genetic code) with the ability to produce its own hardware. It is also very important that if life was a spontaneous event the code had to evolve on very unstable macromolecules unable to supply long term memory. Is it possible? Long term memory and code protection is obviously necessary to develop a code.

Remember if the code evolved spontaneously it could only use what was available in the prebiotic world.

You can only give your children the data and Thomas Philip’s advice about interpretation.

Regarding the origin of life , an interpretation that atheists must prove wrong , is “ life is not a chicken /egg situation.” Without the code , nor the chicken nor the egg would exist.

THEY MUST PROVE PASTEUR’S DICTUM WRONG USING ONLY PREBIOTIC CHEMICALS IN Millar -Urey type experiments.