XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.russian.z1   
   From: os333@netc.eu   
      
   JTEM,    
   >  Andrew wrote:   
   >> "JTEM" wrote in message news:10ag3ns$3lhcp$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>> Samuel Spade wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> In all of known history, there has never been a mind without DNA.   
   >>>> Therefore DNA came first.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's a very poor "Argument." VERY poor.   
   >>>   
   >>> There is no known example of life ever coming from non-life.   
   >>>   
   >>> No spontaneously forming life on record anywhere.   
   >>>   
   >>> So, by your argument, life had to come from life i.e. creationism.   
   >   
   >> Excellent argument.   
   >> Also irrefutable.   
   >   
   > You know what's odd?   
   >   
   > Let's say that there's a big announcement tomorrow, that scientist   
   > announce that they created life from non-life under laboratory   
   > conditions.   
   >   
   > Yup. They ensure us that they began with an absolutely sterile   
   > environment -- completely devoid of any living thing -- and under   
   > the strictest laboratory conditions they turned it into life...   
      
   How do we (living humans) distingwish between what is a   
   living thing and what is a non-life? This question seems   
   to be needed to be answered first before speculations on   
   artificial creation of life from non-life. Practically,   
   we do distingwish between them pretty well, but we don't   
   understand well enough the way we do the distingwition.   
   It'd be easier if we had some formal criteria to clearly   
   separate life from non-life. But, AFAIK, there's no such   
   criteria accepted both necessary and sufficient.   
      
   Scientists (both falsifiers and bona fide scholars) from   
   time to time claim they've managed to make something that   
   seems to be alive, but it usually doesn't go much far.   
      
   > What would this prove?   
   >   
   > No, it wouldn't prove that aabiogenesis happened. It wouldn't prove   
   > that life ever spontaneously formed on earth. Nope. What it would   
   > prove is...   
   >   
   > It would prove that CREATIONISM is possible!  In fact, it would be   
   > an example of creationism!   
   >   
   > If scientists ever coaxed non living material into spontaneously   
   > generating life (something that has never happened) it would be an   
   > example of an intelligence creating life by design.   
      
   It is true it wouldn't prove abiogenesis, but as well it   
   is not true it would prove that creationism is possible.   
   You fallaciously suppose Creator to be sort of human(-like).   
   Hence if humans could do it then it proves Creator could   
   do it as well. But then there's a question: who did create   
   Creator? If Creator had not been created then They can not   
   be supposed to be human(-like).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)