swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 13, 11:27 am, Chris Bell wrote:
>
>>s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>>On May 13, 9:38 am, Chris Bell wrote:
>>
>>>>*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.
>>
>
> From 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
> From the mnemonic 'mrs gren' living things have/need
> Movement, Repiration.Sensibility, Growrth, Reproduction, Excretion,
> Nutrition
>
(That would make senile old ladies dead then since they are neither
growing, sensible nor reproductive?). Sorry, Gladys, I couldn't resist it.
No. And I don't have a definition, as the experts in that field are
unable to agree on one, I don't see that any input of mine would be of
any use.
>
>>>'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..
>
Then we have to consider what is a "thing". My dictionary defines it as
"whatever is or may be an object of perception or thought".
That means that if God created the world from nothing, then there was no
thought (eg of creating), nor any perceived notion of what that creation
might be. I would hope that God had some idea of what he was creating
before he did so, and hence I do not agree with creation ex nihilo. Note
that your last sentence above also rules it out, as if God spoke, then
words must already have been in existence, so "things" were already there.
Personally, I lean towards creatio ex deo.
>
>>>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 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.
>
But then, we already know that you are scientifically illiterate.
>
>>>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
Chris
|
