Are scientists proving the existence of a Creator God ?

Originally posted by The Soothsayer

Evolutionary speaking, though, how is being born of mud any different then God using mud? By the Bible's terms, in order; God created light, the sun, the world, the water, plants, animals, then man. Evolution terms; Big Bang, sun, Earth, oceans, simple plants to complex animals, then man.

Yeah, you make a good point, but didnt the bible say it happened in days? Where does fish come in as a matter of interest?

Originally posted by The Soothsayer
Like I mentioned earlier... study the painting, learn the artist.

Except life isn't a painting. It's a self-evolving, ever changing system.

There is no way that scientists synthesizing DNA in a lab can have any type of correlation to the existence of a supreme being. It's essentially saying that 1+1=4500000. So using this logic does that mean because we have also created machines that can fly, it is proof that there are angels? I've got no problem spending all day debating things that are well thought out, but this is the worst argument I've heard for the existence of a supreme superbeing in a long time. Actually, the worst idea since the creation of crystal pepsi.

Alrighty... since there haven't been any links posted yet, here are a few for the entire Origins of Life=MUD debate...

1. Origin of Life
2. NASA news
3. News Blog

This is just a few of the links, but they all tend to agree... life originated out of mud. Not rocks, not dirt, but mud... tends to echo what the bible said.

Oh, and just for argument's sake, here's what both the Quran and the Bible have to say: mud / clay

If the Bible had said God made life from a mix of carbonates and other chemicals in a warm pool of water near a volcano then it might have been nearer the truth .....

But anyway, God did more than just create life. If we can cxreate life all that proves is that in that respect we're Gods equal.

God also created 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.

So we have a way to go yet to equal him. Or indeed prove scientifically that a conscious being is capable of having created this part of the universe.

reply to post by The Soothsayer


Those sites don't sa life came from mud, and neither does Genesis. The meaning of the name Adam is irrelevant - Adam was the last life form to be created; God having already created all other life (including humans).

Originally posted by Essan
But anyway, God did more than just create life. If we can cxreate life all that proves is that in that respect we're Gods equal.

That's what I had said quite a few posts back... that all this proves is that we will be the gods of our creations, in as much as our gods were to us.

Furthermore, read more of the Adam bio... towards the bottom, where it says he was made out of mud. That is what I was showing; follow the context of the previous posts.

Seems that people are under the assumption that I am favoring one side or the other in this debate. I am not; I've already posted my beliefs, and they are not related to this line of discussion at all. All I am doing is playing devil's advocate and trying to make a point.

Now, if the author of this thread could justify some claims, or those who back up the notion that science is following in some Higher Being's footsteps, then I wouldn't have to try to do it myself. Likewise, if all this thread had were posters who agreed, I would probably try to find ways to disprove it... isn't that what these discussions are all about?

So...

For those who disagree that science is explaining / justify-ing / replicating God's work, then please, give examples. Simply stating "no, can't happen" doesn't work. You'd think those of you who've been here a while would have known how things work... you need proof and evidence to back up claims.

I've provided links. Anyone else care to try?

Originally posted by The Soothsayer

Originally posted by Essan
But anyway, God did more than just create life. If we can cxreate life all that proves is that in that respect we're Gods equal.

That's what I had said quite a few posts back... that all this proves is that we will be the gods of our creations, in as much as our gods were to us.

Furthermore, read more of the Adam bio... towards the bottom, where it says he was made out of mud. That is what I was showing; follow the context of the previous posts.

Seems that people are under the assumption that I am favoring one side or the other in this debate. I am not; I've already posted my beliefs, and they are not related to this line of discussion at all. All I am doing is playing devil's advocate and trying to make a point.

Now, if the author of this thread could justify some claims, or those who back up the notion that science is following in some Higher Being's footsteps, then I wouldn't have to try to do it myself. Likewise, if all this thread had were posters who agreed, I would probably try to find ways to disprove it... isn't that what these discussions are all about?

So...

For those who disagree that science is explaining / justify-ing / replicating God's work, then please, give examples. Simply stating "no, can't happen" doesn't work. You'd think those of you who've been here a while would have known how things work... you need proof and evidence to back up claims.

I've provided links. Anyone else care to try?

I think you have it close to why I am asking the question I did. From what I understand, in applying science to confirm a theory, that theory has to be proven out and be repeatable (unless I got this wrong). So then if there is this theory out there that "God" (Supreme intelligent being) created life on the Earth from dirt (or mud), then at least the act of creating a life form must be accomplished and repeated at the very least to show that it is "possible" for a Creator to have done it. And according to the scientists, they are doing just that, creating a brand new life form.

BTW, an analysis of the human makeup shows it to be made of the same elements consistent with the Earth.

On the other hand, if scientists were to say that they boiled a pot of primordial soup and were able to produce a life form of some sort, they too would be able to show at least that evolution were possible. So far I haven't heard that this has happened.

Originally posted by The Soothsayer
Alrighty... since there haven't been any links posted yet, here are a few for the entire Origins of Life=MUD debate...

1. Origin of Life
2. NASA news
3. News Blog

This is just a few of the links, but they all tend to agree... life originated out of mud. Not rocks, not dirt, but mud... tends to echo what the bible said.

Oh, and just for argument's sake, here's what both the Quran and the Bible have to say: mud / clay

you obviously have a limited knowledge of theories concerning the "origins of life". this is just one theory out of the many, and is certainly not the most popular.

there are such a wide variety of theories that puts the origins of life being nearly in all environments, so of course one of them would conform to you bible lovers. and as i stated above, this "mud" one is by far not the most popular and rarely gets any attention (coming from someone who studied chemosynthesis at university).

thiestics = love picking and choosing little snippets of science that back their argument up and never explaining the full situation.

[edit on 21/12/07 by cheeser]

Originally posted by cheeser

Originally posted by The Soothsayer
Alrighty... since there haven't been any links posted yet, here are a few for the entire Origins of Life=MUD debate...

1. Origin of Life
2. NASA news
3. News Blog

This is just a few of the links, but they all tend to agree... life originated out of mud. Not rocks, not dirt, but mud... tends to echo what the bible said.

Oh, and just for argument's sake, here's what both the Quran and the Bible have to say: mud / clay

you obviously have a limited knowledge of theories concerning the "origins of life". this is just one theory out of the many, and is certainly not the most popular.

there are such a wide variety of theories that puts the origins of life being nearly in all environments, so of course one of them would conform to you bible lovers. and as i stated above, this "mud" one is by far not the most popular and rarely gets any attention (coming from someone who studied chemosynthesis at university).

thiestics = love picking and choosing little snippets of science that back their argument up and never explaining the full situation.

[edit on 21/12/07 by cheeser]

Ah... no, theists don't do that. Ask any theists if they would consider evolution to be valid if a test could be done that would involve how the first cell formed such as the "boiling pot" of premordial soup idea I suggested. If a living cell jumps out and begins to multiply and feed and live on and reproduce, evolution would be a proven possibility.

The fact that scientists can "create" new life in the lab at least shows that the possibility of a "creator" exists. One must be open to all possibilities before making the claim to truth. Otherwise we're like Al Gore and just cutting and splicing science to say what we want it to say.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Fromabove]

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Fromabove]

Until we create without using what is provided, we aren't God. We aren't God.

Originally posted by depth om
Until we create without using what is provided, we aren't God. We aren't God.

Possibly, but even God used what was provided, namely, the earth itself.

The scientists didn't always know to do it, they had to visualize it, consider it, and desire it, then make the effort, The Bible says that this is what God did. Oh yes... were not as good as He, but that it can be done only shows that the possibility that there could exist a "creator" is there. So far as I know, an example of evolution has not yet been accomplished as I described earlier. To let you know, it was attempted, but never produced results, but that was twenty or so years ago.

from my point of view ( i study evolutive computing and artificial intelligence ) you cannot have any intelligent form of existence from chaos . My project (MSC) will be to create a virtual space with a set of rules, then to simulate an infinity of "random" scenarios in order to obtain a level or order . The cause of the DNA is certainly external to our universe , but if you blame God for this then you have to apply the same question to God . If God exists because we are complex, then how can something even greater (God) exist without a creator. As a consequence any superior form of existence would require even a more superior form of existence to create the first . So , in conclusion - the argument of complexity does not directly proof God . What I would define as God would be the "final cause of everything" .

I think the better proof of God will be when man tries to create a living thing from absolute scratch, meaning nonliving molecules, and fails.

All man is doing now is modifying the DNA, which is the instruction set for life. As pointed out earlier, DNA is not life itself, just a molecule that stores instructions.

Originally posted by Fromabove

Since the Bible says that God created man (and all life) from the Earth itself. That he "formed" man from the dust of the Earth. And we know that all of the building blocks of life are there in the Earth itself.

Haven't had many debates with atheists I see,,

I know where you are going with this and as much as I would say your intentions are good, your methods are,, well naive.

First you must realize that you are talking to an atheist. They don't believe in such things and they don't want to. That they have a lock on science and it is one they will growl like a rabid dog with a bone if anyone from any other perspective in science threatens that. Competition is not something they would entertain as a science called Intelligent Design will eventually just have to be accepted and I am certain it will. Until then they will continue to whine about having to see nativity scenes or just having to see the word "GOD" as in god we trust will offend them taking it to the supreme court and looking like cry baby's. In the meantime YOU should learn all you can about this man and read all his books because there is a huge agenda going on in Church across the land and unlike this guy www.skeptics.com.au...

We will have no problem at all showing him and his groupies just how right we can get when we are pissed off. GOD has a temper and his righteousness is wrath. If that is what they want then they need to celebrate that they may get what they so arduously and deservedly asked for.

If they can pull this garbage so can we. If they wanna blame us for starting wars then we may as well start one with them.

They are in fact,, the enemy and I make no apologies for saying that.

Any Christian that would like more information about this may pvt message me as there is a lot to learn about this Atheist movement and a lot of money and hard work is been done.

Get this committed to memory plato.stanford.edu...

www.trueorigin.org...

The last thing you should do go about this on there terms,, if you kinow the lord you know the terms and you know the enemy

www.trueorigin.org...

www.cosmicfingerprints.com...

www.reasons.org...

www.trueorigin.org...

I have been busy writing a rather long essay in answer to Majors post but have not had the time to finish it. There has only been one post here that impressed the hell out of me and that was by "thisguyrighthere" who obviously knows how to write a post in a powder keg of a topic, make his point intelligently without offending me.

Nohup is typical of a post that while he thinks his questions are clever his post is indicative of the condescending and intrusive agenda they have that the Christians I know and I don't know many but the few I know are very well connected with very deep pockets.

we see this kind of thing going on and see rude obnoxious people who ride the coat tails of atheists science of evolution using it as an excuse to act as any way they feel like. We are all imperfect and just the sum total of our genetics. Christians ought not say things like : I don't believe it " when you are given science.

What you ought to say is just what they already have concluded.

That we are stupid, dumb, our science is junk and our unalienable rights given by our creator was written by a Easter bunny believing "fundamentalist " named Jefferson and it doesn't mean a thing. That we are the cause of evil, bloodshed and everything that will cause the end of the world while they say they don't hate us.

They have no GOD but they have a Messiah , they have no Religion but they are organised with an agenda and many followers who wish to impose their way on our way. They use separation of church and state to mean GOD and state as if a religion MUST ALWAYS have a god else it isn't a religion and no reason for separation.

They don't have a GOD but they have an IDOL.

They don't have a 66 books of a Bible but they have many books they use the same way to prove they're righteousness is fact while ours is merely faith.

They are everything they hate in us and the very reason they scare many others with Hostility twisting a scripture taken from a language they have only a remedial education ala google to know anything about let alone think they are going to make some faith shattering remark with.

With all they have said about Christianity,, it's a wonder we are all alive at all. You see this on ABC news forum and as angry as I get reading that "stuff" I take much comfort knowing that we finally have decided that they have crossed the line and are making a gargantuan effort to stem the tide. They have no religion to call a cult and have no doctrine but are as single minded in there agenda as they are closed minded in the considerations of others beliefs. While none of us can accuse the many symbolic or tangible things as they are like spiritual terrorists with out a country without a army but act more like instigating insurgents making silly remarks about Easter bunnies but forgetting that very word Easter has meaning for some of us. Saying you believe in rabbits named peter cottontail would have anyone saying "oh you mean the Easter bunny" and you know why?? Because that too EXISTS as a myth, legend makes no difference. Children believe it and for that reason is why our heavenly father say YOU WANT PROOF I AM? Then YOU come as a child.

That makes no sense to them at all and is why any such comments made about us comparing our belief in God to Easter bunnies is pathetic as a comeback from someone so much more intelligent the I. It tells me more about WHAT I have been talking to and not who. I admit I am as angry as the rest of my church is about it and I was their biggest holdout thinking it was all just enthusiasm. That was until I read some of the "Plans" they have for us and how they say teaching our kids what the bible says is child abuse.

While we pay our taxes feed the homeless volunteer to help the elderly and raise money for computers in schools that have none. They paint us as meeting in some dank dark dungeon where all we do is plan out next abortion raid or world war three.

We don't toot our own horns much but seriously and as very good advice, Christians try very hard to keep from using expletives and try very hard to maintain a modicum of civility and decorum. We do that because it is expected of us but asking us to remove every trace of GOD from our society with the hopes that one day all will be atheists whether you do it by each generation knowing less and less about him or by ridiculing those of us that do by ripping and tearing at our faith splitting hairs on stories the bible has that contradict while never considering that the Bible doesn't endorse everything it says.

They don't they are blinded by a myriad of false religions and GODs. Explaining that the idea of GOD was to answer questions science couldn't

Well Guess what LET SCIENCE EXPLAIN GOD.

NooooO they won't even consider the idea and have more intention, energy devoted to keeping it that way. They don't even want anyone to have the OPTION to choose while they accuse us of forcing our own on everyone else. Dawkins says in his book that what scares him is that Christians REALLY BELIEVE THAT STUFF.

I laughed as that is exactly what I think about him and his monopoly on science.

I have no idea why Christians keep making the mistake of using ID when talking to people as deeply entrenched in there own dogmatism as we are in ours but they do.

TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE CHRISTIANS and you have no reason to justify your belief in God any more then Atheists have a reason to attack it with put downs and protocols making sense to know one but themselves.


We come from a mindless purposeless thing called natural selection and the only logical reason we exist at all is to die so the next generation can die and the next in a grand scheme of utter meaninglessness with out hope without reason and certainly without explanation. Of every historical figure that has ever lived, from Genghis Khan to Moses, they decide the man Jesus was not only a liar a con man but now I see he never existed. This is tantamount to holocaust deniers and just as offensive. Don't insult my intelligence with the objective of convincing me you are more intelligent then all of us.

I won't bother explaining why that tactic is counter productive.

Most of these posts are the same thing but the brilliant diplomacy and excellent post given me by thisguyrighthere is one we can all take a lesson from.

All I got to say to Dawkins is

forums.abcnews.go.com...

Bring it,,reprobate

- Love Con

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Fromabove
Possibly, but even God used what was provided, namely, the earth itself.

The scientists didn't always know to do it, they had to visualize it, consider it, and desire it, then make the effort, The Bible says that this is what God did. Oh yes... were not as good as He, but that it can be done only shows that the possibility that there could exist a "creator" is there. So far as I know, an example of evolution has not yet been accomplished as I described earlier. To let you know, it was attempted, but never produced results, but that was twenty or so years ago.

Showing that humans can create a DNA strand in no way demonstrates that a creator has done it. It only shows that a human has done it. It is also important for me to emphasize the word "has" in the first sentence.

You said, a creator could have the possibility to create life now that we have. I just don't see how that equates with the creator actually creating that life, apart from the possibility.

I don't think scientists have ever said "creationism isn't possible and we will never consider it". Of course, the possibility is out there, as you stated, but there is no evidence to suggest there is a creator, or any falsifiable experimental data to suggest it. Again, science never claims to have the ultimate truth to anything; thats why they have falsifiable tests--so that future results could ultimately prove a theory wrong and hence the need for repeatable tests.

I wouldn't say this is a direct experiment to prove the existence of a creator, its more of a bad analogy. Saying humans can create DNA doesn't mean a creator did it. It simply says humans did it. I do concede that there is a possibility that a creator could do it, but that is hardly the same as saying a creator DID do it.

I would also like to add that biological evolution doesn't really address the beginnings of life; only how there is a variation in life. I think you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

By the way, why did you stop posting in my thread? This one seems to be covering the same ground we left on after your last reply in mine.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by The Soothsayer

Evolutionary speaking, though, how is being born of mud any different then God using mud? By the Bible's terms, in order; God created light, the sun, the world, the water, plants, animals, then man. Evolution terms; Big Bang, sun, Earth, oceans, simple plants to complex animals, then man.

Yeah, you make a good point, but didnt the bible say it happened in days? Where does fish come in as a matter of interest?

Hey oz how you doin,, the fish is symbolic of the fisherman that after Jesus had risen his disciples went fishing and didn't catch a thing. '

Jesus was on the beach and yelled hows the catch today? they said no good. He yelled to them to throw the nets on the right side of the boat and they did. shortly the nets were filled with fish. Then Jesus annointed them with the same healing powers they had and said soon you will be fishers of men.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by Fromabove
Possibly, but even God used what was provided, namely, the earth itself.


I don't think scientists have ever said "creationism isn't possible and we will never consider it". Of course, the possibility is out there, as you stated, but there is no evidence to suggest there is a creator, or any falsifiable experimental data to suggest it. Again, science never claims to have the ultimate truth to anything; thats why they have falsifiable tests--so that future results could ultimately prove a theory wrong and hence the need for repeatable tests.

Yes they have in fact it is case law now in a landmark lawsuit where they have now made it a legal precedent that ANY science purporting the postulate of a creator is labled religion behind the guise of science.

science can't help it if it proves a mind made something.

They say then it's no science at all because it doesn't fit with what they want to believe. The Judges decision was taken right out of richard dawkins foul mouth. I mean verbatim .

So we got something to add to it.

We got the numbers and we got the votes and we got the money and we had enough of them. Survival of the fittest will be proven in politics as it is in science. How much you wanna bet Ateism gets CRUSHED

I have seen what a ticked off church can do and I am telling you this much it isn't something they are going to take lightly

if they want a bill in congress to remove science in general just so I can make sure my kid isn't learning what I am told they are going to learn then don't blame us for dumbing diown society blame the "movement" putting the gun of humanism to our head.

Besides what difference would it make if all we are is imperfect genetic masses of undulating flesh having no other purpose but to survive just long enough to die and death being the point of natural selections legacy to mankind. WOW if thats true I want to know what IS the point anyway.



[edit on 21-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

"Fromabove" they are right and this does NOT prove anything as was explained by "thisguyrighthere" However it would be to your benefit to study more of dawkins and the other links I gave you. With all due respect,, you aren't really grasping the threads meaning .
- Con

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by Fromabove
Possibly, but even God used what was provided, namely, the earth itself.

The scientists didn't always know to do it, they had to visualize it, consider it, and desire it, then make the effort, The Bible says that this is what God did. Oh yes... were not as good as He, but that it can be done only shows that the possibility that there could exist a "creator" is there. So far as I know, an example of evolution has not yet been accomplished as I described earlier. To let you know, it was attempted, but never produced results, but that was twenty or so years ago.

Showing that humans can create a DNA strand in no way demonstrates that a creator has done it. It only shows that a human has done it. It is also important for me to emphasize the word "has" in the first sentence.

You said, a creator could have the possibility to create life now that we have. I just don't see how that equates with the creator actually creating that life, apart from the possibility.

I don't think scientists have ever said "creationism isn't possible and we will never consider it". Of course, the possibility is out there, as you stated, but there is no evidence to suggest there is a creator, or any falsifiable experimental data to suggest it. Again, science never claims to have the ultimate truth to anything; thats why they have falsifiable tests--so that future results could ultimately prove a theory wrong and hence the need for repeatable tests.

I wouldn't say this is a direct experiment to prove the existence of a creator, its more of a bad analogy. Saying humans can create DNA doesn't mean a creator did it. It simply says humans did it. I do concede that there is a possibility that a creator could do it, but that is hardly the same as saying a creator DID do it.

I would also like to add that biological evolution doesn't really address the beginnings of life; only how there is a variation in life. I think you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

By the way, why did you stop posting in my thread? This one seems to be covering the same ground we left on after your last reply in mine.

Please refrsh me on your thread, I will reply.

Science teaches us this way. In order for a hypothesis to become a theory and eventually a fact, the subject in question has to be shown to be able to occur, and then be able to be tested, and then repeated. Like the theory of reletivity, it has been proven repeatedly. If I want to make carbon dioxide and my theory is to mix vinigar and baking soda together because I believe that I can make a gas from a combonation of a liquid and a solid, I have to show it can be done and I have to be able to repeat it over again.

So, I guess where I am coming from is, since we cannot see God, but life exists, and we want to know if it was the result of creation or evolution, I have to be able to prove my theory by a scientific test to either show:

1. That life itself can be created
2. That life can just randomly happen on it's own

If I want to prove the first, I have to by experimentation, create new life, to show that the possibility is there for a "creator"

If I want to prove the second, I have to create the enviroment that my theory rests upon and observe to see if life suddenly occurs randomly on it's own.

If scientists are able to create life, I have satisfied a test to show through science that life can be created and that it had a "creator", and to support the possiblity of a universal creator. The key word here is "possibility". Just as we do not know for certain that the theory of reletivity is universal and not a locally enclosed event, we can only say "through science" that the "possibility" of a universal "creator" exists.