Re: Abiogenisis
- From: "Chris Devol" <eat@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:01:30 GMT
"Ian H Spedding" <ian.spedding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1127245230.574358.158010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Chris Devol wrote:
>>
>> "Ian H Spedding" <ian.spedding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1127193965.547845.144730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Chris Devol wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Ian H Spedding" <ian.spedding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1127124091.948276.231970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> > Chris Devol wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "newsy" <newsy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:f3e79$432e5252$18d55582$12597@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> > Assuming abiogenisis occurred on the earth,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No evidence of that whatsoever.
>> >> >
>> >> > The evidence is all around us. Whether Goddidit or it emerged
>> >> > naturally, life emerged from non-life. Whether it first happened on
>> >> > Earth or elsewhere in the Universe is another matter.
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming that life comes from
>> >> life.
>> >> To
>> >> prove this, you can try to name an organism that hasn't come from
>> >> another
>> >> organism.
>> >
>> > Both science and the Bible agree that the inanimate Universe was
>> > created before any living things appeared, hence, life must have
>> > emerged from non-life.
>>
>> "Appeared" does not mean the same thing as "emerged". Life "emerged" from
>> life, not from non-life. Life "appeared" when it emerged from life (God)
>> and
>> entered into biochemical machines, which were constructed specifically
>> for
>> the purpose of housing conscious living beings. But the beings were
>> already
>> living. They merely chenged residences.
>
> You are postulating that life is an energy-like phenomenon which is
> neither created nor destroyed but simply passed on from one form to
> another. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for something like that.
Sure there is. Look at your own identity, which remains the same even though
your body is changing every second. Every seven years, as the story goes,
all the molecules in your body are replaced. Yet you don't forget who you
are and have to change your identity every seven years. You know it's you.
So you are transmigrating into different bodies all the time, and you can
directly observe this, if you're paying attention.
And what to speak of the numbers of reports of very young children who
remember past lives in sufficient detail to enable their accounts to be
verified. Dr. Stevenson has done a lot of research in the field.
The evidence is definitely there.
>> Abiogenesis is the idea that life emerged from non-living chemicals,
>> without
>> any outside influence except the impersonal "laws of physics" acting on
>> atoms and molecules. According to this view, life is a purely
>> materialistic
>> phenomenon, a mere property of matter in a certain state of organization.
>> In
>> other words, according to this viewpoint, the difference between "living"
>> and "non-living" is basically an illusion.
>
> Yes, to a certain extent I would agree with that. You could say that
> life is an epiphenomenon of matter in a certain state of organization
> but I would argue that the properties or attributes that distinguish
> living from non-living matter are real rather than illusory.
You may agree with it, but in this case there really is no evidence. No
scientist has been able to assemble molecules and make a living creature,
not so much as a protozoan. No one has ever observed abiogenesis.
>> But there are certain properties of living beings which are not amenable
>> to
>> such materialistic reductionism. Consciousness, for example, cannot be
>> described in terms of the laws of physics acting on molecules.
>
> We don't know that. The fact that we can't yet describe consciousness
> at a molecular level doesn't mean that it won't be at some time in the
> future.
The fact is, no one can even begin to think of how consciousness could be
described reductionistically. It will never happen, because consciousness is
not an epiphenomenon, but a separate form of energy which is unknown to
modern science because it does not come from matter.
>> Therefore, abiogenesis is unacceptable. Life comes from life.
>
> I find the fact that I and all those that I love will die one day
> completely unacceptable. That won't prevent it happening, though.
> This Universe quite plainly hasn't been arranged just to suit me (they
> wouldn't have cancelled Star Trek if it was).
The universe has been designed to suit everyone in it, not just you. That is
why Star Trak was cancelled. It suited someone else, and it was their turn
to get what they wanted. It's karma, dude.
As far as people you love dying, only their bodies die. But the people
themselves never cease to exist, they just move on, and you yourself will
move on too. And you always have the option of placing your love in
something that will never die. That is what the message of the scriptures is
all about, after all.
> Similarly, the fact that the concept of abiogenesis is offensive to
> certain religious viewpoints does not mean that it cannot and did not
> happen.
Life from non-life has never been observed. Life from life is observed
repeatedly.
> The problem faced by science in competing with religion for the hearts
> and minds of ordinary people is that it has revealed a Universe in
> which humanity appears to be utterly insignificant. We have existed
> for what is, in terms of geological time, less than the blink of an
> eye. There are forces out there in the cosmos that could erase us so
> thoroughly that there would remain no trace of our ever having been
> here. It doesn't do much for our egos.
It's not true, either. "We", the individual conscious living souls, have no
beginning or end. We were always, and we shall always be. But because we
have identified ourselves with what is unworthy of us, namely the material
bodies we temporarily inhabit, we suffer loss when they dissipate and
dissolve.
And it's our own fault, because the scriptures and the prophets have always
been there to tell us what we really are, and how to get out of the grief
that consumes us. We go to our doom voluntarily, and are culpable for
whatever ignorance holds us down.
> Religions, on the other hand, generally exalt humanity, for all its
> faults, as the centre-piece of creation about which the rest of the
> Universe revolves. And if we play our cards right with whatever deity
> is supposed to have been responsible we get eternal life with all the
> fringe benenfits thrown in.
I sure don't see that in the Bible, which has generally nothing good to say
about humanity. The real scriptures teach that the whole creation revolves
around God, not humanity, and that the purpose of human life is to surrender
to God and serve, glorify, and enjoy Him forever. The real scriptures warn
that the bulk of humanity is not doing that, and as a result is degraded to
the point of being no better than animals. I do not see any "exaltation of
humanity" in that. What humanity could be and should be is noble, to be
sure. But what they are is not.
> Unfortunately, to sceptics like me, that sounds like wishful thinking
> writ large in archaic prose.
I believe it is a misconception of who God really is, and who you really
are, that is causing your malaise.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Abiogenisis
- From: Ian H Spedding
- Re: Abiogenisis
- From: Ken Rode
- Re: Abiogenisis
- From: Gary Bohn
- Re: Abiogenisis
- References:
- Abiogenisis
- From: newsy
- Re: Abiogenisis
- From: Chris Devol
- Re: Abiogenisis
- From: Chris Devol
- Abiogenisis
- Prev by Date: Re: Birdnow Lays Another Egg
- Next by Date: Re: Birdnow Lays Another Egg
- Previous by thread: Re: Abiogenisis
- Next by thread: Re: Abiogenisis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
