Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site hpfcms.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!bill From: bill@hpfcla.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re:Secular Humanism/Existence of God Message-ID: <48000001@hpfcms.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 15:18:00 EST Article-I.D.: hpfcms.48000001 Posted: Thu Oct 31 15:18:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 05:48:42 EST References: <7300002@orstcs.UUCP> Organization: 31 Oct 85 13:18:00 MST Lines: 32 >> A leaf. Make me a leaf using all your accepted physical, chemical (and >> biological) theories. >> ray > >I hate to disappoint you, ray, but I'm fairly certain that one of the first >major cloning experiments was to do just that. They succeeded about five >years ago. Sorry. God is not necessary for a leaf to be created. Or, >for that matter, a baby. He/She/It probably does exist (I believe so, >even if you do or do not), but not because of such flimsy proof as you >would offer. > >Richard Threadgill >1230 NW 23rd #7 - SnailMail address recently changed >Corvallis Or Ah, but isn't cloning just tweeking the natural laws that make a leaf, and thereby changing its appearance, or duplicating it? Scientists have NEVER created a DNA that builds a perfect leaf. The cloning example is like taking a priceless painting, photocopying it, and then saying "See? I made one just like it - the painter was not necessary!". You're ignoring the fact that God did the real work of designing the leaf in the first place, and creating a blueprint that replicates that leaf over and over. Same goes for a baby. Sure, a man and a woman get together and make one, and sure, we can take an egg out of a woman's body and sperm from a man and make one, BUT WE CAN'T CREATE THE BLUEPRINT THAT PERFECTLY CREATES A HUMAN!! Thus, I think there's some validity to the initial challenge. Bill Gates ihnp4!hpfcla!bill-g