in previous post: "if you except that a cell without its DNA"

should obviously be

"if you accept that a cell without its DNA"

To Thinkabit.

I'm sorry if you feel that I was changing the goal post. I'm not changing the goal posts but I'll try to clear up what I meant.

Origionally I said to Banjo Paterson regarding the theories of biogenesis:

"If scientists create life from no living matter, that would give the idea more credit that it could happen out of chance. Possibly if the conditions were right, then life would have just happened and chance would be a smaller variable. However until such a finding is made, I have to go with what I see. Life is fragile and needs protecting to survive. Often needs protecting before the new life is even born or hatched."

The context of this is about how life started on earth. Not whether life can be duplicated through cloning, or through DNA manipulation in a lab setting. Whether we has crossed that threshold of being able to clone, or to change DNA to make something that was not it's original DNA, was not my concern, nor is it something that I see an issue with recognizing that we've done. We started insulin treatments a long time ago using pigs, to harvested the insulin drugs needed. If I remember correctly this also included gene manipulation at one time. That I have no problem with. What I have doubts about is that these inserting one DNA into another host cell would happen on it's own. A cell needs something to create it. Blood cells though have no DNA, and are formed in bone marrow. Which I assume is under the prevision of the body's direction and probably has DNA in the mix. Red blood cells don't reproduce on their own. The crux of the issue is making a cell body to house the DNA in. If a cell body can be made without being a byproduct of a already living creature, then that material (living or nonliving) gives a better chance of it being able to occur in the beginning stages of earth. As of now I don't see that happening.

(Continued)

The process within cloning, while being a fascinating point, does not demonstrate something that would occur in a lifeless world before life began on earth.

Call it changing the goal posts if you want. But the point is about how life began on earth. Not how it can be manipulated in today's world. If life can be stared through nonliving material (that isn't a byproduct of something already alive) then this could give a small chance to the argument that this occured in Earth's history. If the conditions that made said life in a lab could be duplicated on a massive sustainable scale at Earth's beginnings, then this could possibly be considered not a momentary chance occurance that likely got snuffed out before having a second generation. But instead if it matched the theorized state the world was in that life was made in a lab, then it might go to the point of Banjo Paterson's perspective of life being an inevitable event.

That is where the goal post is. That is where it was before as well. Sorry if it was not clear before.

On the other hand one theory is that the components for life started in space from asteroids falling to earth. With that in mind, I've included the possibility that experiments in space could be an enviornment to test hypothesizes of life starting on earth

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Sometimes your perspective shocks me. You're views on suicide and the value of protecting life are so different from mine, because it sounds like a key you don't think it should be protected or even be a concern.»

You seem to have gravely misunderstood me. I presume that you are referring to me writing: "It is a mistake to believe that killing our body can stop us from living."

Yes, life does not end with the demise of our body, but this DOES NOT imply that it is OK to kill our body - it is [in normal circumstances] a grave sin to do so!

While there is no reason for concern about a body as such, we SHOULD be concerned about the well-being of the indweller of the body. While losing a body is not fatal for our soul, it is still a setback which hurts and should be avoided.

«As for the interpretation in Genesis. In the book of Job when God finally responded to Job, some of what He said makes it clear that He had a more personal involvement in shaping the world and making the creatures in it, then just to make space for it.»

Of course, nothing can be done or even conceived outside of God.
However, the human mind cannot fathom how that "happens". You mentioned for example "personal involvement", which is a convenient but futile human attempt at understanding/visualising, because God is not a person.

Note also, that even while God had a more "personal involvement", this does not mean that it all had to be described in Genesis 1:1.

Toni, I was interested in your prayer for rain. Can I tell you of my nephews year 5 class at a Blue mountains religious school. At the beginning of the year it was believed that no respectful rain would fall before May 2020 and this concerned the children in the class who had been through severe bush fires. They spent a day praying for rain; within two days they witnessed 200 mm of drenching rain. Do you think they believed in a God who answers prayer over the climate experts claims.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/no-rain-until-may-forecasters-warn-that-there-will-be-no-significant-rainfall-for-six-months-as-experts-warn-of-worst-bushfire-season-ever/ar-AAK004U

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2020/01/bom-one-month-ago-no-rain-until-april.html

http://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/bureau_of_meteorology_s_dec_forecast_of_no_rain_til_may

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/wet-start-to-2020-in-the-blue-mountains-/531275

Ben Domensino, Monday March 16, 2020 - 15:11 EDT
Parts of the Blue Mountains in NSW are having their wettest start to a year in 44 years.

As of 9am on Monday, Katoomba had received 920.1mm of rain since the beginning of 2020. This is the site's highest running total to this point in the year since 1976 and their sixth highest on record, with data available back to 1886.

Elsewhere in the mountains, Mount Boyce's year-to-date total of 741mm is its highest in records dating back to 1995, while Faulconbridge's 780.8mm beats records going back to at least 1986.

The bulk of this year's rain fell during February as a deep and slow-moving low pressure trough caused widespread rain in eastern NSW. Katoomba's 701mm during the month was its highest for February total since 1956. It was also the site's fourth highest monthly total on record for any time of the year.

Impressively, parts of the Blue Mountains have already seen more rain this year than they did throughout all of 2019. Mount Boyce's 741mm for the year-to-date trumps last year's annual total of 710mm.

//Toni, I was interested in your prayer for rain.//

Yeah, so I prayed for rain this morning, and it's been absolutely pissing down in Newcastle for most of the day. Technically, Newcastle is not one of the drought affected areas that I asked Thor to shower with his benevolence. But praying for rain, only to have it bucket down outside my window all day? I would say that this is definitely a sign from Thor. Either that or a classic east coast low. But I'm going with the Thor explanation... atmospheric pressure can't answer prayers.