Does this make you consider that God exists?

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/c...

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/i...

The "coincidences" of extra protons, and the very small mass difference between a neutron and proton, etc.

http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2009/11/c...

The "Just Right" Status of the Gravitational Force

http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2009/11/j...

Is It Unscientific to Believe in God?

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_01.ht...

The Universe — Did It Come About by Chance?

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_02.ht...

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 .

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harva...

You should perhaps also read

http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=p...

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.c...

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.

Get back to me when you have an answer......

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.

What we KNOW from science? Seems like you have a few mistaken ideas.

"Life ONLY comes from life." The only thing science says about this is that maggots are not spontaneously generated in rotting meat. The relevant experience has been blown completely out of proportion by creationists who pretend that the experiment proved abiogenesis is impossible. Since scientists have now created viruses in the lab and are well on the way to creating more complex organisms, the creationist lie can no longer be supported.

Nope. The elements and compounds still may have fit together to make a small organism, that produced more, then mutated to create "species." After a great amount of time, these species may have ingested each other and become parasitic, and evolved to being naturally born within each other. This would continue until a large life form was created.

That said, what could have caused this, and is it necessarily correct? I am not sure, but I place the thought on the Zero.

I read this & thought it very interesting: Evolution is certainly not fact, it is man made theory. There is absolutely no conclusive scientific proof of evolution. There is only variation within species, no transition from one species to another, and no record in fossils of this. Evolution is a bigger hoax than Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Creation is God's handiwork.

Do you know what the word "theory" actually means?

This is from the dictionary:1 a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.2 a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.3 Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.4 the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.5 a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.6 contemplation or speculation.7. guess or conjecture.

Theory is exactly that "theory" not fact. Aren’t you embarrassed that evolutionists base their entire worldview on “theory” something that’s unproven, mealy theory, and does nothing to explain the origin of life? Some evolutionists say we come from monkeys, some say single celled life forms, some now say outer space! What's it to be? How did it all start? The Theory of Evolution offers no answer or solution and absolutely no proof whatsoever period. The Bible offers explanation and conclusive proof of its validity and origin from divine higher authority.

Haeckel was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena for his fake embryo drawings of 1874 that had been falsified to show the human embryo as being similar to other animals something he confessed to. After his trial he had said that he would feel utterly condemned if it were not for the fact that hundreds of other evolutionists did exactly the same thing. Haeckel claimed that spontaneous generation must be true, not because it had been proven in a laboratory, but because otherwise it would be necessary to believe in a creator!

All of his frauds were brought to the public attention in the 1911 book “Haeckels Frauds and Forgeries” by Asmuth and Hull, yet over a hundred years later his fake drawings were still in text books being taught as science fact (not even theory) regarding evolution.

The fossil record proves the truth of the Bible and disproves evolution, and just brings up more holes and questions for the evolutionists.

Our very own dna has such complex code that its completely laughable that we could have evolved by random chance from single celled organisms. The theory of evolution is just that a theory. It has absolutely no proof whatsoever and the evidence is spurious at best and based on false assumption and bad science such as carbon dating. The Theory of Evolution has so many holes in its spurious evidence and guesswork and does nothing to explain the origin of life never mind offer anything in the way of conclusive proof like the Bible does. The fossil record supports the proof and validity of Gods Word the Holy Bible and disproves the theory of evolution.

Nope, cause your 5th question already answered your own question :) If we find god then we will eventually start wondering who made god, god, god. The question just goes on and on.

If life only comes from life then it could possible come from anything. Everything in nature has life even stones :o. WHAT IF A STONE MADE HUMANS :/ rofl

Just enjoy life the way it is, no need to make it complex :)

Life is nothing more than a chemical process. There are many pretty interesting and rational theories as to how life may have started on Earth that do not involve a deity. There also may be life on other planets on other solar systems, proving that life is not in fact so rare. (Mars actually has evidence of microorganisms having once existed there...and Mars is in our same solar system....if life could have developed TWICE in one solar system, there is a great chance it has developed in many other places).