Re: I don't laugh at atheists. They have accepted indoctrinations.

swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On May 13, 9:38 am, Chris Bell  wrote:
> 
>>s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>
>>>On May 6, 12:17 am, "Lu R" wrote:
>>
>>*snip*
>>
>>
>>>First came creation.
>>>Living had to produce living.
>>>Macro-evolutionists avoid that issue as they would avoid the plague.
>>
>>>*snip*
>>
>>I have just read a book review in the last week's New Scientist (p.47).
>>The last paragraph reads
>>
>>"We can redesign life, but are we any closer to its definition? Regis
>>(lead author of the book being reviewed) thinks so. Synthetic biology
>>and biotechnology have introduced the concept of "minimal life"....Regis
>>argues that life is "embodied metabolism". It is a provocative claim
>>that is sure to generate debate."
>>
>>The issue is not avoided, but actively debated. You should try to keep
>>up with that debate if you wish to comment on it in public fora without
>>making a fool of yourself.
>>
> 
> I speak/post  from my understandings. I do not think I am making a
> 'fool' of myself. The fact is 'abiogensis' - ie living things can be
> produced from non-living matter -  has not been proved up to this day
> in May 2008,
> 
Not true. Scientists cannot even decide what is alive and what is not. 
Until you have a generally accepted definition of "living", you cannot 
say what is living and what is not.

> 'Embodied metabolism' - Do you mean that scientists think they can
> give life to non-living particles/molecules?

Yes, and it has been demonstrated. But is it life?

> Will they have solved the creation problem if they achieve that?
> No, because the original creation was 'ex-nihilo' - out of nothing.
> God spoke and that which did not exist came into being by the power of
> His word.
> 
Please define nothing.

> In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word
> was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made
> that was made.   John 1 : 1, 3.
> 
> It is a pity, no, it is a tragedy, that there are scientists
> (atheists, I assume) who are so intent on spending millions of dollars
> for their efforts trying to prove that they might bring life from non-
> life when there are so many problems within the world's populations of
> today.

Why? Such research has enormous potential in medecine and agriculture.
And you probably assume wrongly.

> Is it, that hopefully making a name for themselves with posterity, is
> more im****tant to them than humanitarian efforts with today's needy.
> 
> Gladys Swager

Chris