It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are scientists proving the existence of a Creator God ?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I have pondered this question over several days now and I wonder, are scientists proving the existence of a Creator God. I understand that they will be able to "create" synthetic DNA, literally, a new form of life by binding and forming DNA etc from scratch and inserting it into an empty cell membrane. They expect it to replicate and so forth.

My question then is, if scientists are able to do this, does it prove the existence of a Creator God of whom the Bible states created man and "formed" him from the the Earth itself.




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Absolutely not. It just means we've learned how to map DNA. Once it was mapped and the functions of various genes were sorted out, it was inevitable that we'd be able to make artificial DNA.

Nature is full of compounds that science can synthesize. Doesn't mean they're "proving god."



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Yeah, that doesn't prove god.

If I build a house does that prove carpenters exist? The only thing it proves is that I can build a house. There may or may not be a bunch of carpenters running around somewhere but their existence is totally unrelated to my building a house.

If man can build life all it proves is man can build life.

As far as proving or disproving some god goes it really does neither.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Actually it is just another extension, of evolution, a mutation and a new speices and how it is coming together as you will see is to take the synthetic DNA and we will leave it in a pond of water and,,mmm then lets just leave it sit there till we see a new society evolve from it.

Or ,, we can carefully design a custom made companion to someone.

I still see proof of god when ever I see Jessica Alba,, I say "Their IS a GOD!" .

Seriously,, I don't know what you are asking here. Their is a lot of intelligent desigh threads and this looks like the start of one.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Yeah, that doesn't prove god.

If I build a house does that prove carpenters exist? The only thing it proves is that I can build a house. There may or may not be a bunch of carpenters running around somewhere but their existence is totally unrelated to my building a house.

If man can build life all it proves is man can build life.

As far as proving or disproving some god goes it really does neither.



Wrong DNA is differen't for it is a language, it has a encoder decoder instructions subset instructions. Liked DNA that we see in humans mammals , it too could not have happened by accident



Professor Dawkins has offered an essay responding to this question in context with the interview, and it will be examined here. It is pointed out that speculation and selective use of data is no substitute for evidence. Since some statements are based on Thomas Bayes’ notion of information, this is evaluated in Part 2 and shown to be unconvincing. Some ideas are based on Claude Shannon’s work, and Part 3 shows this to be irrelevant to the controversy. The true issue, that of what coded information, such as found in DNA, human speech and the bee dance, is and how it could have arisen by chance, is simply ignored. Part 4 discusses the Werner Gitt theory of information.

After several years, we continue to request from the Darwinist theoreticians: propose a workable model and show convincing evidence for how coded information can arise by chance!



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Absolutely not. It just means we've learned how to map DNA. Once it was mapped and the functions of various genes were sorted out, it was inevitable that we'd be able to make artificial DNA.

Nature is full of compounds that science can synthesize. Doesn't mean they're "proving god."


What about when we start creating genetic alterations to us ? Would that not be evolution? or does it always have to happen by "mistake" and then just happen to work better by , I don't know throwing it against a wall enough times till he did. If We made a new life form purely out of the lab would that creature be the product of evolution or ?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Grabbing some DNA and making something is the same thing as grabbing some wood and making something. I didn't get into where the wood came from and the OP didn't get into where DNA came from. It's complexity, code or whatever has nothing to do with using to make something.

This thread asks a simple question. Does making something from existing building blocks prove a creator?

If you want to get all wrapped up in where the building blocks came from then that's a whole different level of ontological debate. One, frankly, I don't care to have. God or no god it doesn't change my life one bit. I couldn't possibly care less.

If you want to have that discussion then go have it in a thread that poses that question.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Grabbing some DNA and making something is the same thing as grabbing some wood and making something. I didn't get into where the wood came from and the OP didn't get into where DNA came from. It's complexity, code or whatever has nothing to do with using to make something.

This thread asks a simple question. Does making something from existing building blocks prove a creator?

If you want to get all wrapped up in where the building blocks came from then that's a whole different level of ontological debate. One, frankly, I don't care to have. God or no god it doesn't change my life one bit. I couldn't possibly care less.

If you want to have that discussion then go have it in a thread that poses that question.


Yeah I am a bit confused as I said in the first post, not sure what he is trying to say.




This thread asks a simple question. Does making something from existing building blocks prove a creator?


I would think the answer to that lies in the question itself as you say "does "Making" something from existing building blocks prove a creator. So in "making" something,, am I not the creator of that which I made? I am inclined to say yes. or am I missing something?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Sure, you making something implies you have created that something.

My making a house implies I made a house. Not the wood for the house.

Just as making a living thing from preexisting DNA means these scientists have "created" a living thing.

Nobody has said that these scientists are creating the DNA they used. They may be manipulating it but they aren't creating it.

If the scientists were following the steps laid out in your first post about throwing some amino acids in a pool and watching it for millions of years then we can say that maybe the scientists "created" DNA but they didn't create the amino acids.

We can take this all the way back and ask what created the gas and material involved in the "Big Bang" and even further to what existed before that point in time and sooner or later you'll have to come to the conclusion that something beyond the real of human reasoning or beyond our dimension of existence had to initiate something or accept that things exist simply because there is no beginning or end to anything ever anywhere.

Or we can stay within the boundaries if the question asked by the OP and leave it at that. Making something out of existing building blocks neither proves nor disproves the existence of a god. It just proves that man can use stone to build a wall or DNA to make a living thing.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
We are gods.

We are able to reproduce DNA. We can recreate DNA. We have created and designed artifical organs.

Our robots have eyes, ears, mouths, can walk, have arms...

"And God crated man in His image"

We, eventually, will be onto gods of our creations. Would it be of any wonder to discover that OUR gods were anything more than ourselves? After all, in mythologies and old religions, didn't the gods mate and have offspring, face death, wage war, and require food and drink?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
DNA is just another molecule. A very complex molecule, but a molecule just the same.

Saying that because we can now synthesize DNA proves there's a god is the same as saying that because we can synthesize aspirin or vitamin C there is a god.

Faulty logic, faulty assumption, not scientific, not proof of god.

Next!



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   
If anything, we could say that because we have the ability to alter / recreate /synthesize DNA, we are becoming closer to understanding god.

Afterall, if you study an artist and his styles, doesn't that give you an insight of that person?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I am impressed,, very interesting and well said I must admit.

- Con



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
My question then is, if scientists are able to do this, does it prove the existence of a Creator God of whom the Bible states created man and "formed" him from the the Earth itself.


No, because the concept and definition of God is flawed from the beginning, and can't be proven. We create things because we have a need to create. We have deficiencies, such as pain and mortality and ignorance. Are you somehow saying that God has some kind of deficiency, or need, to create things? That God got lonely or something? That's a bit of anthropomorphic projection.

Ask yourself this: "Why would a Creator God create?"



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I guess why I am asking this question is because according to many people, for something to be accepted science (theory) it has to be proven by experimentation and be reproduced to show it can be done and so forth.

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.

By the fact that scientists are beginning to do this, not to mention the fact that DNA mapping is making it more possible for scientists to make a complete new life form someday. Does this not offer proof by experimentation that it is quite possible that there could be a "creator God" who could do this and much more?


As for the wood and not the house thing, that is meaningless because the Bible says that God used the earth to make mankind, and all living things. So God used the wood to make the house, but the wood didn't become the house on it's own. I don't think anyone has ever yet recreated the events that gave rise to any living creature according to the evolution theory by experimentation have they. You just don't hear stories of scientists boiling premordial soup and having living things jump out of it, do you ? If so let me know.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Wait a second, if the bible says we were created from dirt.......shouldnt dirt have DNA too?

DNA proves more that we evolved rather than created....but then again I am atheist

Good to see Major Malfunction is still alive and kicking on these threads :-)



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
God created man out of mud, not dirt, and then breathed life into his body.

Mud, especially around fertile areas, like the once Tigris / Euphrates, was full of nutrients and genetic strands.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Oh, I see, "god" created man out of mud (which is dirt with water in it) according to mythology, but organic molecules evolving from abiogenesis to true reproduction is completely impossible?

As i saw one creationist say on YouTube, "Yeah, we all came from rocks."

Well, we didn't come from rocks, but if we did, how is that unacceptable when it is acceptable to think we came from mud?

Compartmentalization. The bolt hole of delusional fantasy.

(Thanks, OzWeatherman -- just been on a brief hiatus. I'm too ornery to disappear forever. )



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by The Soothsayer
 


Mud isnt full of genetic strands, the mirco-organisms that inhabit mud are full of genetic strands. Mud cant be brought to life.....(unless its those mudmen monsters I saw in crappy b-grade movie years ago)

And major makes a good point, whats the difference, mud, rocks, dirt, nougat.....none of it can be brought to life, and none of it has its own DNA

PS- Mud is just wet dirt



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with the whole notion on why one thing versus another. The biblical writers could have easily said we came from goo, or from test tubes, or from the semen frothing in the ocean waves. Personally, I believe mankind was created / genetically altered to be a slave race, but that's just me.

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.

It doesn't matter on the how's or the why's... we are all here, and it, whatever it is, happened.

And to go back to the original question... scientists may or may not be proving the existance of God. If anything, they are proving that His methods are feasible. Like I mentioned earlier... study the painting, learn the artist.



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join