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

On May 13, 11:27=A0am, Chris Bell  wrote:
> s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > On May 13, 9:38 am, Chris Bell =A0wrote:
>
> >>*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 =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,
>
> 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.
>
=46rom what I taught about living organisms to children in my Second
Grades I was of the opinion the term 'living' had been decided by
scientists.
But to verify I did look up some websites. The following is a slightly
more detailed definition. Would you agree with it or do you have
another definition.
http://members.chillo.nl/r.kuizt_mrs-gren
=46rom the mnemonic 'mrs gren' living things have/need
Movement, Repiration.Sensibility, Growrth, Reproduction, Excretion,
Nutrition

> > '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.
>
"Nothing'  is 'Not anything' is one way of defining it..

> > 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. =A0 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 medicine and agriculture.
> And you probably assume wrongly.
>
There is the potential for healthier living today than in previous
times,
when people (can) avail themselves of the means.
Very expensive experiments in the hope of showing something can come
from nothing just does not make sense to me.

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