This video explains how the origin of life and defies clearly the argument that says "every painting needs a painter therefore God exists". The reason: painting aren't living so can't replicate themselves, living matter, however, can. Life actually began billions of years ago following a series of chemical reactions and a common substance on the planet back then proved a perfect catalyst for this. Over BILLIONS of years, life evolved to form the current human-being, which have only existed for 100,000 years (1/43,200th of the time the Earth has existed.) A good watch for creationists and evolutionists alike and it dispels common myths about scientists' understanding about the origins of life on Earth. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

Reply

In a way this is so true.. thats why i use to say that we have god.. and god is us itself.. we started all this.. its the way the world works.. people do stuff like setup religion , god .... things like that.. i don't know.. its all a conspiracy.. i mean cmon.. im not saying i dont believe in god for all those people that believe in it.. all im saying is that we are our own gods.. i mean we're the one making the world the way it is.. we're the one that discovers new things everyday.. us human!!! We came to this earth somehow yonks ago.. and no one will ever find out how.. all the stuff people say is just a conspiracy

Reply

I watched that youTube clip and nothing in it new except it is video instead of writen or electronic pages.

That can't prove anything. It can't prove claim to something happened 7 billion years ago by making video or film. If something can't be approved exprimently or mathematically, then it is theory and even not scientific theory.

see the scientific theory requirment at http://www.sedrak.ws/Scientific_Theory.htm

Do anyone can apply this theory to produce one tiny cell?

Moreover the DNA shows more than before the need to a creator-designer who put all the information in the DNA to instruct the various cells to do its functions.

Do you know that the information in the DNA can fill a sheet from here to planet Marc?

 

 

 

Reply

That makes it a hypothesis, which according to my old science lessons, is "an idea backed up by lots of really clever scientific thinking":), which makes it respectable because of its scientific backing. This hypothesis cannot be tested because we don't have the knowledge let alone the power to replicate a Big Bang or the creation of life. Let's put it this way, more thought has gone into creating our theories on the world's creation that went into inventing supernatural gods. We all know unicorns don't exist so what makes God's existence any more valid?



Has anyone used the theory behind how lightning is formed to create a bolt of lightning? No. Has anyone witnessed the decomposition of plastics? No. Has anyone created a cell? No. Does that make any of these theories wrong? No.



We just don't know enough about DNA in order to explain logically how the information was put there. I'm sure someone better qualified than me could comment on how DNA works though.



And? That doesn't prove the existence of a deity.

Reply

I think the scientific quest to prove evolution can also be explained philosophically (I know... I'm trying to act as a philosopher even though I don't have such a degree...) I think scientists are followers of the human quest for knowledge. This quest has led them to believe (notice I do not say "erroneously believe".) that a complex problem such as life cannot have such a simple answer (i.e. a deity.) Scientists are people who challenge a norm and then find ways to prove it. For example, back in the 1600's, it was common knowledge that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It was up to scientists to disprove this.

Back in the 1800's, it was also common knowledge that the Earth and everything in it was created by someone. Now scientists are trying to challenge this theory and disprove it. To them it is nothing more than a great challenge that they feel compelled to take. While creationists simply flick their hands and say, "No, there's no need to do that; God did it all," scientists are actually trying to prove them wrong.

Of course, some scientists are trying to prove the creationists right, but it's the creationists themselves, not the creation scientists, who are ignorant.

Reply

- I know what the hijacker of science teach and claim in their books and school books.

- I am scientist but believer in God[I am not alone]. I studied all the relativity theories and beyond plus the thermodynamics laws by complicated mathematical formulas.

- I accept ideas and hypothis but I don't considered it true until pass the conditions of that.

- I wish you are finished your study because I don't want to confuse you. If you are still studying, you can tell them what they taught to you but in the same time keep your skeptics in your mind.

QUOTE(electriic ink @ Mar 24 2008, 03:26 AM)

This hypothesis cannot be tested because we don't have the knowledge let alone the power to replicate a Big Bang or the creation of life. Let's put it this way, more thought has gone into creating our theories on the world's creation that went into inventing supernatural gods. We all know unicorns don't exist so what makes God's existence any more valid?

If something can't be tested then the theory is historical theory and belief. It is the same as what religion saying except the later can be followed by tracing to our ancestors history 6000 yeras ago but not 7 billions years. By the way claiming something happened 7 billions years ago is baseless. Why 7 bilions not 6 or 9 billions? Who determines that?

QUOTE(electriic ink @ Mar 24 2008, 03:26 AM)

Has anyone used the theory behind how lightning is formed to create a bolt of lightning? No. Has anyone witnessed the decomposition of plastics? No. Has anyone created a cell? No. Does that make any of these theories wrong? No.

In this case there is simple question [please don't answer it again by another question]
Why nobody can create a one cell using this theory?

QUOTE(electriic ink @ Mar 24 2008, 03:26 AM)

We just don't know enough about DNA in order to explain logically how the information was put there. I'm sure someone better qualified than me could comment on how DNA works though.
And? That doesn't prove the existence of a deity.

If you don't know how the information in DNA are put there, then don't deny automatic that may be a designer may be put there . Until that the claimer of the theory have not to claim that there are not painter to the painting as they put in there videos. From where you are sure that there is one can explain that. You could search the internet. I know there is none.

The DNA discovery make big problem to the evolution theory.

Reply

My dad is the same as you but the one problem I have with Christian scientists (not to be confused with Scientologists) is that until science can prove something, you take the God-did-it approach. Science WILL be able to explain problems of today, such as the creation of DNA as you described, in the future. Just think of what we've taught ourselves over these past 300 years and, with that in mind, what we will know in the next 300 years.



Because the cellular life took a billion years to form, and even that cell was so basic, it's nothing like the cells we have today. Someone could create life but it would take so long and cost so much money it's not worth doing. Doing it would also be very controversial; excuse my stereotypes, but you would get a lot of Evangelical Christians claiming that doing so would controversial and more evidence that scientists keep "playing God".



It's not the same as religion. Religion is purely faith-based and carries no evidence, not even scientific theory to back it up. There's just as much evidence that God created everything as Martians did. We can trace our ancestors back 6,000 years but we can trace dinosaurs back even further. Below is how they determined the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years old +/- 0.2 billion years:



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Time...of_the_Big_Bang

And the Earth's age was calculated using radiometric dating.



There may be no-one yet, no.

Reply

Sorry to be so blunt, but religion can't prove what happened 2,000 years ago using only a collection of books, but that doesn't stop them trying. Both the scientific and religious theories rely on the fact that they cannot be proved wrong. However, as ammunition in their argument, both sides use the fact that the other has never be proved right.



DNA does not actually contain any physical information. DNA is not an intelligent being; it cannot think or make decisions, therefore any 'information' would be useless to it. DNA is a sequence of chemicals, differing slightly from each other, that react in certain ways with other chemicals. When these reactions occur, the order in which the chemicals are placed on the DNA determine the order in which new chemicals are bonded together - it is simply a series of chemical reactions happening in a predetermined order. Chemical reactions occur all the time without the intervention of a grand designer, so why should these reactions need one?



Well, actually, they have There are a few details they are not sure on, but lightning has been reproduced in labs, and the theory is pretty much the same as rubbing a balloon on your jumper and sticking it to the wall.



Erm, they have Plastics have been manufactured that break down in UV light, visible light, through bacteria in soils or through reactions with ozone. This is actually why bottled water has a sell-by date; the light breaks down the plastic and causes it to leach into the water.



What they claim is backed up with proof from experiments and studies that can be replicated by anyone with the right tools and equipment. There have been cases where people have been wrong, but scientists always make the best predictions on the available evidence, and they are usually right. Sometimes small adjustments need to be made (such as with the theories behind the structure of the atom) as technology and evidence advances.



The age of the Universe is calculated from the rate of expansion of the Universe, and tracing it back to a central point and time - the Big Bang. Reversing the expansion of the Universe and looking at how long it has taken us to reach where we are now allows us to see how long it has been since the theoretical Big Bang. The age of the Earth can be estimated using radiometric dating. Using a mass spectrometer and looking for naturally occurring radioactive isotopes of elements, and their rates of decay, you can work out how old something is. I think the oldest rock ever found was from Australia, and is around 4.5 billion years old.



People are certainly trying. There are ethical and funding issues, along with our current lack of knowledge.

Reply

your big bang theory now is little by little being disowned by scientist because it doesn't explain everything in the universe
if a theory is not true then all hypothetical facts found on that theory is false.

and explain to me the rate of the universe when any scientist still don't know how big the universe is.

chemical reaction doesnt happen on its own there must be something first that will make it to an reaction. if there is na2so4 and hcl in here that will be nacl "without someone making it into reaction"

Because the cellular life took a billion years to form, and even that cell was so basic, it's nothing like the cells we have today. Someone could create life but it would take so long and cost so much money it's not worth doing

--- oh ok so your predicting that you can create life from nothing, do you have substantial proof on what you are saying? even if its hard to do there should be some kind of prediction of a procedure that you can produce because that was the big bang theory came form.

another side of the story

Reply

I saw the video, and found some parts funny (for both sides, mind you). I noticed the video didn't take the time to prove that the conditions of the earth were as they depicted. What they did is take the time to set the stage for their argument—this is what makes their argument appear possible, and therefore logical. If we accept this premise, then we are most likely sure to accept anything following it. What the video tries to do is prove that abiogenesis can happen given the proper conditions, without divine intervention. This is true in theory, but what about in practice? Scientists have taken the time to create similar conditions that were supposedly present when the earth was in its "primitive form" in order to prove that the statements made in this video really did happen. (This is usually referenced to "The Primordial Soup Theory.") However, although they did manage to make something that, if more components were added, could indeed cause life to form, it didn't last long enough to even get a chance to "find" these other components to merge with. In fact—it died instantly. You may read more here: Abiogenesis#Early_conditions. Also, there were many other attempts to try and prove that abiogenesis is possible through "natural" means, but all attempts have failed. You may see all failed attempts here: Abiogenesis#Current_models. So far, biogenesis remains king. Given all of these attempts, it makes it clear that the only possible way abiogenesis can even happen is if God were to intervene and cause a miracle to happen; however, science cannot make this claim. So where does God need to intervene, as the video asks? He would have to intervene in each step of the way. The video takes up the assumption that God was not the one that caused these things to mold together, if indeed they did mold, that is. Genesis says that we came from dust, do you really think dust will just walk up and form a man on its own? (Yes, the dust to man thing appears to be a Biblical mention of abiogenesis—but that's why i said it requires a miracle, that God must intervene.)

To add more, i've read all the laws of thermodynamics—i've even read the text provided in the video, and i'm here left wondering why it doesn't contradict the laws of thermodynamics. The earth is considered an open system because it obtains its energy from the sun. According to the laws of thermodynamics, an open system will eventually lead to chaos (not the original form of "chaos," that is, destruction, but more of randomness, disorder). The keyword in the video here is "polymerise." If you read the current models which i provided a link to, you will find this word, "polymer," et cetera, plenty of times. I cannot believe that something, according to the theory of evolution, would eventually end up becoming more complex in an open system.

Also, the video implies that the "evidence" only gives way to the theory of evolution. But it seems to not realize that all "evidence" is subject to interpretation.

I am not ignorant of anything the video has given—it brings nothing new to the table. If you expect me or any other believer of God to admit that the theory of evolution is true or "so widely proven and supported by evidence beyond a doubt," you're going to have to do better than this. But here's a suggestion: bring something new to the table, especially something that is proven and not refuted; good luck on that. I'm quite surprised that colleges are still teaching this stuff.


I see you are ignorant of all the statements in the Bible that has been proven by science. Consider reading the Book of Job—it contains a lot.

Reply