Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

www.avpress.com

The professor described himself as a "flag-waving and card-carrying evolutionist and, about half the time, an atheist," but said evolutionary theory has not explained how the first living cells came into being.

"I now believe with about 60% certainty that the first living things were intelligently designed by a creator," Rainbow said.

"For 50 years, the best scientific minds on the planet have tried to show where the first cells came from and we failed miserably to demonstrate that. … If you try hard for 50 years and fail to show something, that's pretty strong evidence - the old theory of a prebiotic soup now appears to be kaput."

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm not the only one that thinks we did not come from apes or fish nor are we here by accident.

www.avpress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

What if aliens landed on earth tommorow, what would you belive then?

We already have a ongoing discussion about this topicHERE

Please add replys to the above link. Thank you

[edit on 27-4-2008 by Master_Wii]


Mod Edit - One Breakng News Story and One "regular" Forum discussion is allowed on a subject.

[edit on 27-4-2008 by elevatedone]

I didn't see your story but I don't need to go there.

Now this is what I like to hear:

Some real evidence! I never thought it would happen.

The creation model stands apart from the "intelligent design" movement, which rightly has been assessed to be nonscientific, he said.

"Intelligent design is not testable because the intelligent design movement does not offer, as yet, any model to explain the origin of history and the details of its life," Ross said. "We have a model. We had a model even before the intelligent design movement existed."

Ross stressed that his work never would prove God's existence with 100% certainty.

"Science is incapable of offering absolute proof of anything. Science cannot offer absolute proof of the existence of any entity," he said, but it can offer "measurable probability."

[edit on 27-4-2008 by Sublime620]

There is already a post with this info...please go to that site to reply this post is dead

reply to post by alienib


This thread is still open because it's in the breaking news section. Don't listen to the other guy, he just wanted this thread closed so he could get more hits (notice the mods already edited his post).

Please stay on topic, this thread is open and within the T&C's.

Thanks

I'll stay then...I never found the other post and I looked first

[edit on 27-4-2008 by alienib]

So now all thats left to clarify is if God is a supernatural being or an alien which for us is still a supernatural being

reply to post by alienib


Forget about it, some times members like to pretend they are mods and dictate threads for them selves.

Anyways, if Scientist think there was some kind of chemical soup that formed the first life..

Just re-create the "soup" and create life again. If it happened once, why not again. I suppose if you had the right mixture, maybe throw in some electricity you could create some very basic bacteria. If not, that theory is truly dead.

But also note for you creationist..

He is not saying God made Humans, but rather, God made very very basic bacteria that over millions upon millions of years, became Humans.

He's doing good at trying to win over both crowds. I will remain an evolutionist until I see some real evidence to prove other wise, not just a lack of "enough" evidence for one side automatically means God made everything individually. Which is absurd.

What if aliens landed on earth tommorow, what would you belive then?

So who said I didn't believe in aliens? I've never seen one in person (mirrors excluded) then again, I've never seen God either

I will remain an evolutionist until I see some real evidence to prove other wise, not just a lack of "enough" evidence for one side automatically means God made everything individually. Which is absurd.

And your evidence of evolution is?.......

....Dinosaurs, fossils, various extinct ape species...

Your evidence for Creationism is???

A 2000 year old book?

I fail to see how old fossils prove evolution. When did that process stop?

Originally posted by alienib

The professor described himself as a "flag-waving and card-carrying evolutionist and, about half the time, an atheist," but said evolutionary theory has not explained how the first living cells came into being.

he's about 50% correct, the complete theory does not fully articulate how the first cells came into being..but,

there are theories that something like proto-bacteria, deveoped itself enough to organize itself enough to create a membrane around it's independent 'self'...and thus was a 'cell' which became alive in the sense that it responded to external stimuli and the cell developed the ability to replicate.

that AV (antelope valley) artic;le was for preaching-to-the-chior,
it isn't a peer review scientific paper... its an entertainment piece

interesting, but still only a propietary piece

It worked...I'm entertained

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/4/2008 by watch_the_rocks]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Just re-create the "soup" and create life again. If it happened once, why not again. I suppose if you had the right mixture, maybe throw in some electricity you could create some very basic bacteria. If not, that theory is truly dead.

They have tried through the Miller-Urey experiments but it did not prove that life could spontaneously be created, only that a minute amount of amino acids could be (through small electrical charges striking a 'soup' of ammonia and methane and then isolating the resulting amino acids).

There are many holes in the experiments that invalidate the idea that life could have originated this way. Many scientists agree that Carbon and Nitrogen should have been used, not ammonia and methane. Instead of leaving the amino acids in the soup, as soon as they were created they were artificially trapped so that they would not be destroyed. In reality this would have never happened and they would indeed have been destroyed. His experiment also created many substances that would cross-react with the amino acids or destroy the peptide change.

[edit on 4/27/2008 by InterestedObserver]

So what if life came out of a soup.....who was the cook, where did the ingredients come from.....who was watching the clock to make sure it did'nt burn up. Evolution, and ID, creationists, religions, scientists.... are just making arguments over which recipe God(or whatever you want to call it) used to create things.
Bill and Ted science.... Oh, hang on, it just like appeared, like that, all of it, and then it all just kind of fell into a soup and then all of a sudden it was alive, and then it all of a sudden mutated, then again, and again and then we could like explain it, because it just happened.