If there indeed is no such thing as a soul, then science should be theoretically able to create life out of bunch of atoms through chemical reactions. If that happens, it would be a strong argument against God's existence. But so far, science couldn't create even an amoeba, simplest of all beings. I guess there's a component scientists are missing
Well, if the study described in that link is true and valid, your point is not true anymore and we could then have that strong argument as you said. http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge318.html
Science still can't explain from where soul is coming from and what happens with it after death.
You are making a big assumption here. You are assuming that there is such a thing as a "soul" and you are assuming that science can't comprehend it. So far, even if there are still a lot of things to learn about the brain, science got a pretty good grasp on the electro-chemical processes happening in our brain and many other animals' brain too.
(Lesson kids: never *ever* burn bridges unless you have no choice. Swallowing some pride now can save your bacon big time later)
Then you go with:
and I offered to provide contract assistance at a nearly extortionist rate (easily 3x what they were paying me). It was pointed out to me that I was unlikely to get hired if asking that much money, to which I replied "who said I wanted to be hired?"
Me think that you still not have learned your lesson on burning bridges...
Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan