Artifical life

I didn't read this article but read the more layman article in the New York Times I believe.....so thoughts on what this means?Could this guy (a brilliant guy no doubt), just proven that life, *gasp*, requires some sort of designer, or a "god"????Or is this not that big of a deal and all it means is that this genius of a scientist is advancing science?Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

Good grief Rahvin, lighten up a bit would ya.The point is and it cannot be denied, this new life that was made, had a creator. Are you going to deny that??? It had a designer.It's hard absurd what I said.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

AZ,Could you enlighten me to the pros and cons of this. I'm about as dumb as the pile of rocks that Rahvin just designed when it comes to this subject. Seriously.You mentioned the drug benefits....how so? And then you mentioned the dangers.

Thanks for the answers guys. Ya, seems like a ton could go wrong somewhere along the lines.Not to mention how long it's going to take for the FDA to actually approve the drugs themselves.

I'm too lazy to go look the verse up right now or to see what context it was used, but I otherwise agree with you on this point. I think there is life everywhere around us, not just in blood. I believe an insect is life and I believe whatever was created in this scenario is life or a building block of life. Yes, you are right again....we will always claim that God is the only one who can create life, but there's a stipulation to that. We don't believe that he's the only one that can create life, we believe that he's the only one that can create life out of nothing. I guess I don't see the heel turn in this. Are you denying in your post that thus far, in science, everything that has been created has had a designer (a scientist)??? I mean, this is certainly a scientific feat we are talking about here and it should astound us all, but it did require a PhD scientist, who's name will be forever linked to the discovery, to come up with this. It also took known matter from our universe.As far as the rock scenario goes that Rhavin spoke of, my answer to that is yes, I would conclude a designer, if the rock pile showed design. I personally feel that even the smallest know particle shows design. A random rock pile at the bottom of the ocean doesn't show design...a rock pile made by Rhavin to look like a pyramid shows design. The problem with this scenario is that one could design a rock pile, to look like it wasn't designed in the first place, yet it was still designed.My only point was, that Rhavin thought was absurd, and maybe I wasn't clear, is that so far, in anything that science has ever discovered, or I should say created, it had a creator. We have yet to enter into a vacuum of a room and watch life spontaneously start to create itself. This new discovery doesn't prove God created all life, it does continue to prove that everything we know is designed.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

I'll add for the record that I don't think there are any evolutionists claiming this proves evolution in the sense of soup to man evolution.Am I right about this?To me this is a phenomenal scientific discovery that should/could benefit mankind.

Actually that is quite fascinating subbie. The materials were already provided of course, but you are correct, it wasn't designed. I book marked the page to read the article....may be way over my head at a first glance but I'll give it a shot.

This probably goes on to a certain extent in every circle Son. This board is a little unique in the fact that most who post here at least have a little bit of a clue, some more then others, myself being on the lacking end, as to what they are actually talking about. I consider some of the atheists here to be "professional" atheists in the sense that they have their ducks in a row when it comes to their arguments.However, go out on the street and talk to an atheist or a creationist and you'll find more times then not they neither have any clue as to how to back up their arguments.As far as myself. I have no fear that I am wrong in my belief and am trying to "justify it with science" as you say ( I know you weren't referring directly to me in your post). If zero science discoveries were around, I'd still believe my bible. It makes logical sense to me as we've discussed here before.But this goes both ways imo. There are a few creationists and evolutionists out there who did not arrive to their conclusions without a presupposition or worldview being there FIRST. Most creationists, and if you read the literature can admit this, but I've seen very few evolutionists ever admit this. It's almost as if an evolutionist admits this, they are afraid they are admitting a religion.Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.