XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.russian.z1   
   From: os333@netc.eu   
      
   Andrew,    
   > "Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message news:10ahs6p$488c$1@os.motzarella.org...   
   >> JTEM wrote ,   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Living things are able to carry out bio-chemical reactions   
   > in the process of their metabolism. They grow, reproduce   
   > and respond to stimuli   
      
   Also they are collective, and (except the autotrophs)   
   they survive through killing or injuring living things   
   from other species and eating their flesh.   
      
   Ie. one living thing (taken separately) is not life.   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > If they actually did create life, then *creation* would be   
   > a legitimate origins model.   
      
   This model sets no original beginning, while   
   Creationism (in the sense it's commonly known)   
   implies some very initial act of creation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)