even scientist know this that is why they are trying to clone humans by way of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer(I am totally againts this by the way) but the point I want to make is if the big bang theory is so popular why not, try to bring forth life by way of exploting energy? instead, scientist try to replicate what the creator made. Doesn't t his tell you something about their true "faith" in the big bang theory?
The truth is that we cannot hide the fact that we were created not by chance but, by the God creator of heaven and earth.
2007-11-27 05:38:25 · 33 answers · asked by Tx Guy 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree. That reminds me of a story I heard:
God and Man were having a debate. Man said, "God, we have become so smart, because we can clone sheep and other animals, and we are discovering the secrets of DNA. We can make super bio-weapons now. We are so confident, that I would like to suggest we have a little contest. Let's see who can create life the fastest. Just You and me."
God said, "OK, I'll humor you. Are you ready? On your mark, get set, GO!"
So Man reached down and scooped up a handful of dirt and began to work.
"Ah-ah-ah!" Said God. "You need to make your OWN dirt."
2007-11-27 05:49:17 · answer #1 · answered by FUNdie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tx Guy,
I'm afraid your logic is quite flawed. There is no scientific law saying that life cannot arise from non-living material. In fact, there are several plausible hypotheses for how this could have happened. As a general rule in today's world, yes, life only comes from life, and that is what we teach children in biology classes. But in fact, since there is life now, and NO life when the universe started, life MUST have been generated from non-life at some point whether you believe it is through evolution or through a creator.
You are arguing that life must have existed infinitely far back in time... you have not made any argument that singles out creation or evolution as a better explanation for the beginning of life.
And by the way, faith is something that you believe without any supporting evidence. The big bang theory, on the other hand, has large amounts of empirical evidence to back it up. I think you are confused about the differences between science and religion.
2007-11-27 07:43:49 · answer #2 · answered by mnrlboy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why can't it be possible that God allowed the Big Bang to take place, along with Evolution? Why does it have to be an either or? Why wouldn't the creator allow heaven and earth to be created through the Big Bang? Why do you limit his power to how you believe he did it? And what's wrong with scientists trying to figure out how it was done? Do you think God would have given them the intelligence and curiosity if he didn't want people to try to figure these things out? And what makes you think that either the Big Bang or Evolution is chance? Even in the sole realm of science, it isn't chance. If God allowed the world to be created in such a manner, which I believe he did, then it certainly isn't chance, either. Just because something looks like chance doesn't mean it is.
2007-11-27 05:43:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
"but you will never get an atheist to admit any fault on science"
Actually, myfrenz, if you actually understood science, you wouldn't say such a thing. We do admit fault, in fact not only do we admit it, we allow for it and we expect it.
We have what is known as "probability" or "margin of error." We also have the scientific method which requires that all "facts" must be able to be disproved.
It is only in this way that we can continue to expand our understanding. We do not automatically assume that our theories are absolute.
Therein lies a fundamental difference. We allow for possibility.
And to answer the question... no, life does not necessarily come from life. (And that is even "true" in the Bible. Tell me, will you, what did Adam come from? And Eve?)
2007-11-27 05:59:15 · answer #4 · answered by Trina™ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because you do not like the implications you can not hand wave away reality just by claiming something else is the 'truth'
It used to believe that the only way to produce 'organic' chemicals was from a living organism. That is why it is called 'organic chemistry' However, in 1828 Friedrich Woehler made synthetic urea dispelling this myth.
In a few years mankind will be able to create artificial life, all from synthesized chemicals.
What will that do to your 'true faith'?
2007-11-27 05:48:59 · answer #5 · answered by Simon T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
life is only chemical reactions that reproduction. each cellular technique does it. Inorganic compounds additionally are created this way. you additionally could make organic and organic molecules from inorganic compounds. you are able to reflect that. they're getting close to to replicating life methods from base substances. final I heard that's going to be yet another 10 years or so in the previous the test is executed. Edit: Oh, you desire to be certain it outdoors your window. T'ain't gonna ensue. Any new "life" could be fragile, and because extra sturdy life already exists and extra suitable able to evolve, then that new life does no longer stand a raffle. you may get in an area deliver and circulate to a arising international someplace, and observe it. i'm valuable.
2016-11-12 22:08:56 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, life can be produced step by step from non life.
The Miller-Urey experiment proved that under certain conditions (which DID occur on primordial earth), organic compounds could be created. These compounds are the building blocks for life as well as DNA.
2007-11-27 05:45:38 · answer #7 · answered by pumpkin head 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not true. They are doing viruses totally from scratch in the lab.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_29/c3792082.htm http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1072266v1
They can do bacteria using only the membranes (clearly not alive) out of other bacteria as well. They are just the synthesis of those membranes away. Maybe 3-5 years.
The fact that there is no magical thing that you can point to and say that is the line where it is alive should tell you that life isn't as special as you think.
2007-11-27 05:44:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
you intelligence is astounding!!! did i say astounding? i meant @$$ sounding!!!
furthermore, scientists use living tissue because it's easier to replicate than waiting the billions of years using the "starting from scratch" method ala the big bang.
2007-11-27 05:46:35 · answer #9 · answered by just curious (A.A.A.A.) 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, scientists have already created life in the laboratory, and not from cloning. So I guess that just proves that it can happen without coming from life. So, if this is what you're basing your belief in god on, I suppose you now are honor bound to admit that you're wrong.
2007-11-27 05:41:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋