I did NOT attribute the paper to NASA.
How did NASA get brought into this discussion?
You sound more and more like the YEC. They'll make vague references to scientific authorities. But when those authorities don't support their world view they can't remember why they even mentioned them in the first place. They may not even remember having done so.
Like Ken Ham often says, "Many scientists say..."
Tom
I know you are desperately floundering to save face. Let me walk you through it slowly.
You have been repeatedly claiming that there is a scientific consensus about the definiton of life that supports your claim that women ought to be forced to bear children that they do not want.
I linked a paper by three chemists, whose bylines are given in a link you obviously did not click. The paper‘s topic is broad: Is there a common chemical model for life in the universe? That is the title of the paper, with the names of the three “unidentified ideologues” given right under the title, which you would have known had you bothered to click the link and read the paper rather than blather in an uninformed way about it.
Sensibly, the paper begins by asking, How do we define life? As a starting point for discussion, the paper refers to a 1994 panel convoked by NASA (but not NASA itself) that arrives at the following definition: “life is a chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” The paper then CRITIQUES this defintion, noting crucially: “no non-trivial term can be defined to philosophical completness.”
The point, for the ten thousandth time, being that there is no scientific consensus on the defintion of life, and any attempt to enlist science in support of your claim that women ought to be forced to bear children that they do not want because science says zygotes and embryos and fetusus are not just examples of life but are
human children is PLAIN WRONG. Science does not support your view. I suggest you go back to thinking Jesus ensouled the little zygotes.
Your slur about YECs is just another example of your desperate floundering. Neither I nor you are YEC, but it seems to me you are fully Catholic in practice when discussing this subject, but you are trying to hijack science to support your view. Science will not cooperate.