How long before science can duplicate the feat of going from non-existence to existence?

Based on your additional details, you are assuming that "In the beginning there was NOTHING, and God created things out of nothing".

What you are failing to consider is that we DON'T KNOW there was nothing in the beginning. As far as we know, the state of the Universe might have ALWAYS been there and just recreated over and over (planets). If that is the case, there was always never any need for an original Creator of the Universe (if it always were there). Right now, what you're believing is that SOMEONE created something out of nothing. Which, at the same time, you're denying it isn't possible.

BTW, this observation doesn't come from an atheist. But as someone who "has faith" in a Supreme Being (not any deity described by man). When you hold a belief, you also have to be open to ALL possibilities. You can't keep your eyes blindfolded.

You mean other than the observed particle pairs which do pop into and out of existence all the time?

You mean other than the observed mass field fluctuations which pop into and out of existence in between the quarks in a proton?

Which feat of going from non-existence to existence are you referring to?

"there is clear evidenced that Merlin did not create the universe, since he is part of the universe, and therefore part of the creation" Wrong! Since when did Color say that the Merlin referred to is the Merlin found in the King Author stories? You are jumping to unwarranted conclusions just as his example predicted you would.

"just because something is an anti-particle does not make it a NON-EXISTENT particle." Nor did I ever claim it was a non-existent particle. Before the anti-particle enters reality with its pair, it does not exist. As soon as the anti-particle and its pair destroy each other, those particles no longer exist. There is a clear point of when the anti-particle exists and when it does not. I'm sorry that you somehow completely missed what I said in its entirety.

Seeing as though this is in the Religion and Spirituality section and not any of the science sections, I'm guessing this is another argument for pseudoscience.

It is well beyond our reach with our current technology, so probably a long time. Meanwhile, we should not assume that any number of deities are responsible for the creation of everything. Lack of evidence does not support a certain theory based off of holy texts. If this was true for all we know Merlin created the universe.

Science has already done that.... scientists have created cells that went ahead and divided, but that HAD NO PARENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Part of the definition of "life" is to reproduce at the cellular level. Cells HAVE to be able to divide to be considered living things.)

That was announced about two years ago. (Why is it that you religious folks not only have never even read the Bible, but you don't read science stuff either. Why is that?????

Google: The Economist + And Man Made Life for the article. Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith had been working on this for 15 years, and those of us in teaching have followed their failures for 15 years in magazines like Nature, Scientific American, Discover Magazine, etc.

They MADE cells from parts of many cells. And then those cells divided !!!!!!!! No one had ever done that before. No one. They are as well on Youtube.

Geez.

My guess would be never