XPost: alt.paranormal, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.russian.z1   
   From: andrew.321.remov@usa.net   
      
   "Oleg Smirnov" wrote in message news:10ahs6p$488c$1@os.motzarella.org...   
   > JTEM wrote ,   
   >>  Andrew wrote:   
   >>> "JTEM" wrote:   
   >>>> 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.   
      
   Living things are able to carry out bio-chemical reactions   
   in the process of their metabolism. They grow, reproduce   
   and respond to stimuli   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Right.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   > 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)