Scientists have created life in a lab. So what do you think about that creationists?

So how long do you think the "scientists haven't made living things in their labs, only god can do that" claims will continue to be made? Since they're still using Aristotle's "First Cause" argument that's more than 2500 years old (and proven logically fallacious more than 2000 years ago), somehow I don't think they're going to keep up with things...

Peace.

God isn't of this world so how can he be proved or disproved? Only this world is governed by scientific laws. The idea of god at the highest level is so far above the human brains capacity to understand, let alone prove or disprove.

And how do you know that god didn't allow us to create life in a lab? By the way in case you didn't know, humans and every other species has been creating life for billions of years without any supernatural force, unless you call sex supernatural. When we can already create a perfect human being in 9 months, why get excited that science created a bacteria or something in a lab?

DNA is nothing more than equivalent to a blueprint that an architect draws so someone else can build the house, just on a cellular level. The key words in that article are "placed in a host cell". The host cell was already alive, so "life" was NOT created, but simply transferred. All they did was to reconstruct DNA that was already constructed elsewhere in nature. Replicating an existing string of DNA found in nature in a lab is simply making a copy, NOT creating life as you claim. Sorry, but this does nothing to disprove creationist theory as you imply with your wording, but it DOES lend some support to evolutionist theory. This event proves NOTHING in and of itself. Creating DNA is NOT creating life in the same manner as the architect drawing the plans does not make the house. And YES, I really DO understand biology. A strand of DNA by itself can do nothing at all. It takes outside assistance, the living host cell, for that artificial DNA strand to be "alive". I do not believe in religion, but still, I have to defend their point of view because this singular event does nothing to disprove their theory of creationism as you seem to think. The creationists are going to turn this around on you, and claim this is proof that they are RIGHT. Creationists will say, after all, if man can do THIS, then it follows god could have done it as well but without a lab! Sorry, but this proves nothing at all, either for or against creationism and can be used by BOTH sides to prove their case. Your challenge to creationists is bogus, a logical fallacy.

Hello Anna,

What do I think about that?

Science is discovering how things are arrived at, not anything more. The problem will be that as time evolves Anna science will inevitably make a god of itself (I think it already has actually).

They used to laugh at how the Bible describes a rib bone being taken out of Adam, and then Eve being created through that. Well science has now discovered that very capability through the DNA. When science (true science and not mere theory) proves anything it only proves the truth of The Bible.

So to answer your question in short; my faith is unaffected, and my faith in God still stands. Sorry if this disappoints you Anna. Jesus still loves you Anna, and so do I.

Yes it does prove that there is no God but all of the intelligent among us already knew that. But creating life in lab is immoral & very wrong, because it goes against Nature which has been doing very well without the intervention of Man for billions of years.

Dude, if you believe that, you are SEVERELY deceived.

Scientists haven't even come CLOSE to creating life in the lab, not even with this. They even admitted in the article that they only made a COPY of a pre-existing bacteria and placed it into another pre-existing bacteria cell! That's not "creating life"! Not even "synthetic" life!

If they want to create life, they have to start completely from SCRATCH - they have to create the atoms from subatomic particles that they create ex-nihilo and arrange those to make molecules, which in turn must be made into proteins, which in turn must be made into amino acids, which in turn must be used to create DNA, which must be put together in EXACTLY the right order without using a pre-existing DNA as a guide. And they must all be left-handed proteins! The Urey-Miller experiment failed to create life as well - they only created a few right-handed proteins, which is also not life.

You guys are just so eager to prove God "wrong" that you make yourselves look foolish when you proclaim, "THEY'VE CREATED LIFE IN THE LAB!!!" when nothing of the kind has occurred. The Emperor has no clothes on, people.

EDIT: COPYING DNA is NOT the same as CREATING it. That's called "cheating".

So god didn't make cells, they'll just push the definition further back into whatever it is we don't yet know.

It seems to me that "god" is just a word for "not yet discovered or demonstrated" ... hardly an "entity" in it's own right.

Nah, they're just going to tell us that we have to magically create dirt out of nothingness. And if we ever harness vacuum energy, they're going to tell us to create a vacuum.

They'll always be able to push the argument back one more step, so I wouldn't bother pointing out scientific discoveries to them. To them, it's always meaningless...unless it can be warped to support the conclusions that they already accept.

*the sound of a thousand goal posts being moved and the god of the gaps shrinking a little, again*

if man was created in the image of god why wouldn't he be able to create life?

it happens every day in the womb.

not religious or atheist