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

On May 13, 8:12=A0am, "s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <swa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On May 13, 9:38=A0am, Chris Bell =A0wrote:
> > s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

> > > First came creation.
> > > Living had to produce living.
> > > Macro-evolutionists avoid that issue as they would avoid the plague.

It's pretty hard to avoid Gladys, you bring it up in every post.
Abiogenesis is an im****tant issue and people are working on it. But,
just because you don't know whether the chicken or the egg came first,
doesn't mean you can't discuss breeding chooks. And not having a solid
theory on abiogenesis doesn't prevent people discussing evolution.

> > 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 =A0from 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 - =A0has not been proved up to this day
> in May 2008,

But you are indeed making a fool of yourself Gladys, and I really wish
you wouldn't.

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

So because there is still one hungry child in the world, we shouldn't
aim for the moon? If you really feel that way you sshoul;d sell your
computer, buy food, and go feed that child.

So why are "Creation Scientists" not helping the needy, instead of
trying to manipulate the m*****?

Theo