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