1. Life ONLY comes from life. Whether you want to admit it, that is true.
2. If life begets life, the we are left with two choices: Either all life comes from an infinite chain of living organisms, each begetting the next, or..... 3. There would be one original life force that has lived from eternity. The fact that we find it hard to comprehend a single eternally living being does not mean that one does not exist.
4. So I believe that an eternal being, God, is the only explanation for how life began.
5. To rest your belief on the idea that life came from countless billions or trillions of life 'generations' is even more far fetched. Why? Because, you are still left without an explanation of how all life began.
2012-01-27T15:53:39Z
So far lot's of splooge and NO facts. When you find a scientist that CREATES life, come and talk to me. Until then, it is you are believing a fantasy. One more time: Life only come from LIVING matter.
2012-01-27T16:01:14Z
Half of you are saying Science has already created life, the other half is saying they soon will. You can't even agree among yourselves what has actually taken place. For those that say man has created life, proof please! Reference place and time, Scientist and location of lab where such claimed proof took place. That's not too much to ask is it?
2012-01-27T20:15:48Z
Mike B: I applaud your sincerity and effort to answer my question. However, after looking at the links you provided, it's clear that even you are fooled by unproven statements and wishful thinking. Examples: The first article would have us believe that scientists have 'created' a crude living cell. In reality, they have taken fatty acids (hardly just chemicals) and DNA (again not just chemicals) and were amazed that a ring formed around them like a cell membrane. I can get a ring to form on my bathtub but I wouldn't claim to have created anything. To claim to have accomplished anything when they were handed things like fatty acids and DNA is the height of arrogance.
They also make the assumption that ancient cells were simple and crude compared to the complex nature of cells observed today. Yet there is no reason nor any evidence that early cells were less complex. This again is an assumption based on their belief in Evolution.
The 3rd and 4th articles contradict each
Elijah2012-01-27T18:29:33Z
Favorite Answer
Science, with even the best labs and equipment cannot replicate on purpose what they claim happened by shear accident. But even if scientists were able to someday create life from inanimate matter, this still wouldn't prove that living organisms arose from inanimate matter on their own on our planet long ago.
This is reminiscent of a cartoon that showed scientists approaching God to say they no longer needed Him as they had created life. God says, "Show me." The scientist begins playing with dirt. "No, No.", God says. "Make your own dirt." Could life have occurred spontaneously? http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2010/04/could-life-have-occured-spontaneously.html
Also, it is clear to anyone who seriously studies astronomy that Earth is tailor-made for life to exist. That in itself lends serious evidence of a Designer.
And not only does the fact that the universe had a beginning argue that God, the Creator, really exists (Heb. 3:4; Romans 1:20-21), but most scientists would agree with the idea expressed by "Occam's Razor." Occam's Razor is the concept that (1) the best theory is the one which properly answers the most questions, and (2) if more than one theory answers all the questions then you must choose the simplest one as the best theory.
The creation concept answers all the questions in the simplest possible way. The only difficulty is believing in an intelligence that has always existed and which we cannot see. But is this really more difficult than believing in a universe that has always existed? Actually, it is not more difficult because the concept of a universe that has already cycled forever from the past creates more fundamental questions than answers.
Actually, I find it interesting that some scientists admit believing in God because of the fine-tuning of our universe. It is equipped with fixed physical laws and with natural constants that are precisely and ideally suited to support a planet like ours and all the life on it.
For instance, the precise settings of the four fundamental physical forces (electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force), affect every object in the universe. They are set and balanced so precisely that even slight changes could render the universe lifeless.
You may appreciate the following articles:
The "Impossible" Universe http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2010/04/impossible-universe.html
The "coincidences" of extra protons, and the very small mass difference between a neutron and proton, etc. http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2009/11/coincidences-of-extra-protons-and-very.html
The "Just Right" Status of the Gravitational Force http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2009/11/just-right-status-of-gravitational.html
Is It Unscientific to Believe in God? http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_01.htm
The Universe — Did It Come About by Chance? http://www.watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_02.htm
Good to see your thoughtful question, which I will answer the best I can:
1. True! AND, just because the Bible account of creation seems rather simplistic to some, doesn't mean it isn't factual. Funny, man always wants this complex explanation for everything and yet, the simple answer should suffice. Think about it...if the Genesis account was complex, people would be complaining that they do not understand it and God had it put down to complicated, lol Just shows that Jer. 10:23 is correct in many ways.
2. & 3, Why not have FAITH? And that would be to believe that there truly is One Almighty God, Being, Father Creator of all things and that he has no beginning and no end. Do we mere dust humans understand that completely? NO! Does it mean that it is false? NO! It does mean that we need Him and that soon we can grow to perfection right here on earth under Christ's 1000 yr reign! Ps. 37:10, 11; Rev. 21:3, 4; Dan, 2:44
4. You got that one right! :D
5. When people start talking about Billions and Trillions, I just laugh~!!! How on earth can they substantiate those numbers without being far-fetched? Anyway, when you truly examine the Scriptures you see that much of it does go along with science.
Are Science and the Bible Compatible? http://www.watchtower.org/e/201102c/article_01.htm
You are convinced of your own argument so most of what anyone would say to you is unlikely to be sufficient in showing you that you may actually be wrong, but you do need to examine what you are saying and the implications of it.
First, your comment at point one fails, there is a simple reason for this, and the science that gives it to you is chemistry, we know that all the substances that make up living beings are at the most basic level chemicals, and we know how those chemicals work.
We know and it must be accepted that we are made of the same stuff as everything else on this planet, we do not contain a single atom or any element that cannot be found elsewhere in the very rock we walk on.
So, that means that all the molecules that make up a human being, all of the compounds that make up every single living thing from bacteria, to a cactus, through to a fish, and ultimately to us are available.
This means we know the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, what we do not know is how they fit together, what combinations under what conditions lead to something becoming 'life', what we do know is that it is a combination or amino acids, proteins, and certain other chemicals, but which ones, in what order, that is the issue. Once that is found, we will form something alive using those compounds, it will happen, we just have not been at it long enough.
Remember, you live in a world that has been made by the various sciences, look back a century, to 1912, and think about what we have now, and what we have achieved in that 100 years. Much of it life enhancing or life saving.
Airflight, enabling people to travel around the world, but also enabling people to send food and other help to starving people, victims of war, famine, and natural disasters in hours.
Television, enabling you to see what is going on half the world away as it happens, entertaining, but also informing you, think about those famines and disasters again.
Medicine, inoculations and vaccinations, stopping people from dying or being disabled by illness and disease that 100 years ago would have been fatal, smallpox, measles, tuberculosis, and many others were fatal in 1912, smallpox does not even exist now.
The very computer you are communicating with the world on right now, all of the above, and so much more has only become possible because of the sciences, the scientists, and the research that they do.
Now if they took your view at point one, and accepted that life only comes from life, and gave up researching how life itself got started, and then accepted that the theists are correct and perhaps it was some deity that brought it all together, then they decide to let it go, then what would happen.
In the end all research would stop, your argument would become an end game, there would be no point researching and trying to find out why anything happens, because it would all be explained as being the will of a creator, we would give up on searhing for any answers and it may just be that the search for what causes life to appear from a vat of chemicals may also find a cure for cancer, or find a way to extent our lifespan to 500 or 1000 years.
The thing with the sciences and the research conducted it that not one person knows what they will find tomorrow, and oddly, because of the way that science works, we do not know what swcientists have already found around the corner, all I know is that with the advances we have made, science makes a better bet for a future than any church or belief in any eternal being.
Edit:
1. A lot of splooge, whatever that is, and no facts, read your own question, where are your facts.
2. To my knowledge we have not yet 'created' life, the nearest we have got is to identify what is needed to do so, and to have been able to manufacture some of the 'ingredients' chemically. AS for providing references of time and place, perhaps I will give you a start on that .
I think sources such as NASA and the University of Glasgow may just have a little credibility, now, can you give sources that back up your argument by posting genuine links that have no links to creationist or relgious websites.
For thousands of years, people have said that their god was behind what they didn't understand -- life, lightning, stars, earthquakes, the origin of life, the world or the universe, etc. Positing a god to supposedly answer a question solves nothing. It just adds an unwarranted level of complexity and stops you from asking more questions.
"God did it" is a fools conclusion.
Edit:- If you are so interested in knowing the right ans why don't you ask the question in the right section? Isn't that your favorite attack style? You creationist like to ask biology question to a geologist, physics question to a biologist etc etc. In conclusion 'We still don't know' ie being honest is million times better than your 'God did it' nonsense.
Reality-based life works better for humans. Science (or reality) is based on the fact that everything that exists or happens has a natural (not supernatural) explanation. You don't have to believe science, but try buying a cell phone from a god or having a demon give you a flu vaccine. In other words, life relies on the natural world. Fantasy can involve any supernatural entities you want.
1 - We don't know that from science. No one has proven that life can only come from life. Failure to create life from non-life in the lab is not proof that live can never arise from non-life. Your premise is false.
2 - and the fact that we find it hard to comprehend an infinite chain of living organisms each begetting the next does not mean one does not exist.
4 - that's nice. Any proof that your belief is correct? I didn't think so.
5 - What is 'far-fetched' is irrelevant. What counts is proof. If you don't have proof of god, then your belief is nothing more than groundless speculation.
So, no your little though experiment doesn't make me consider that god exists. It makes me want to contribute huge sums of money to scientific research into the origins of life so I don't have to listen to such arguments ever again. If only I had huge sums of money.