I doubt that could happen from scratch. So far humans have only been able to make life from life. Which makes sense.

But if one would build an organic cell from scratch, is it life or is it a gooey robot?

That is the question. I think what these scientist mean is that life is a "naturally occurring" complex and organized set of matter that can reproduce and consume energy. So naturally occurring mechanical entities may be alive where as a robot built by man wouldn't.

Then I read in the summary that they were talking about a woman.

A lot of states have laws in place that allows even people in poverty to vote without penalty. For example, in Missouri, you are required to notify your employer the day before the election that you are going to vote. They then are required to give you up to three hours of paid time off in order to vote. In order to get paid, you must have actually voted, though you are not required to give proof. So even if someone works for McDonalds or Walmart, they must be given three hours of time off to vote.

I know, right! Sometimes the most eloquent solution is right under our noses.

Nope. Not expensive at all. In most markets, Google will charge $300 to do this for you. In some markets they change $30. But if you subscribe to gigabit or gigabit+TV, they'll waive the fee.

You could just do what I did and switch to Google Fiber. It's pretty decent quality and you get free equipment like an 802.11n router. For cable, your remote control is a free tablet that you get to keep. Not sure why more people haven't done this...

You sir, are the only human on planet Earth that thinks MSNBC is centrist. MSNBC even admits that they are extreme leftists and that they're proud of it.

I simply do not think like you. I can imagine a sports conversation with you,

You "So do you like the 49ers?"
Me "No... I'm not into footb---"
You "I knew it! You're a Broncos fan!"
Me "Well, no... I just don't foll--"
You "You already said you didn't like the 49ers. So you must be asserting that you're a Broncos fan!"
Me "What?"

Not being swayed simply means that. If someone gives neither reasons nor citations (you just need one in informal conversation) for thinking something is true, it just doesn't sway me. It doesn't mean I took the other side. But at least the guy or gal in favor of the Fair Tax explained why he liked it.

There's quite a few complexes near where I live that have Google Fiber. It's proudly advertised on various complex's banners.

How do you figure? By my logic it says that you can't use "weasel words". It doesn't attempt to determine if the comment is correct or the opposite is correct.

"The Fair tax as been torn apart many times." By whom? What studies? Maybe it doesn't work, maybe it does. But just telling me that it's been torn apart many times doesn't convince people like me, nor does it persuade me in the opposite direction.

I don't get it when people say things like this. "X has been torn apart many time!" or "Scientists have already proven X!" Especially since your argument has been torn apart many times.

You're so sensitive...

Fair enough. I guess what I was trying to say is that the idea that "Science" never caused anyone to do any of the things you mentioned was incorrect. Yes, religious people are encouraged to marry within their religion for the same reason you stated. Though I am surprised that you wouldn't mind your children growing up to have the inability to "follow logic and reason".

But you know what's really weird about your response. You keep proclaiming "open-mindedness" while clearly showing an intolerance towards people of faith. A bit amusing, don't you think?

I can appreciate what you're saying, but everything you just said is false. I understand it will upset you because you wish what you said was true, but it isn't.

First Science isn't one man's idea or philosophy just like there are many sects to Religion. Some people, like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, encourage ridiculing or mocking religious people. But you excuse it because Science® is Right. I'm sure the murderers who killed 3000 people 13 years ago thought they were Right too.

"Science doesn't demand we marry other people from the same denomination; marriages between a physicist and a biologist are just as sacred" That's a categorical error. In Christianity, a pastor and a music director can marry just like a biologist and physicist can. But you are correct that Christianity demands that people marry who have the same belief system. This is perfectly normal. You wouldn't marry a devout Christian, right? They'd get on your nerves and it would make a crappy marriage.

"Science doesn't force us into indoctrinating our children into our faith in the one true meaning of Dark Matter." Right, but you would not be happy at all if your children became Christians, right? Obviously someone who actually believes that there is a God out there that loves, cares, and forgives you of sins would want their children to know about Him too, right?

"Nobody has fought a war to eradicate the filthy heretical." WWII - need I say more. Anyway, I can go on, but the point is, "Science is objectively morally right" is just wishful thinking. When there are humans involved - no matter their philosophical beliefs - there will be "Bad Stuff" happening.