Re: Abiogenisis
- From: John Wilkins <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:15:53 +1000
TomS wrote:
> "On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:20:38 GMT, in article
> <agSXe.1006$oc.653@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Devol stated..."
>
>>"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
>
>
> Oh, my.
>
> Things "emerged" from God?
Another bloody Neo-Platonist gnostic. Jeez. Stamp 'em out in one place and
they spring up like weeds elsewhere...
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Therefore, abiogenesis is unacceptable. Life comes from life.
>>
>
>
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
- References:
- Abiogenisis
- From: newsy
- Re: Abiogenisis
- From: Chris Devol
- Re: Abiogenisis
- From: Chris Devol
- Abiogenisis
- Prev by Date: Re: laws of thermodynamics (and their ramifications)
- Next by Date: Re: Ken Ham Lies about Mars and the Flood
- Previous by thread: Re: Abiogenisis
- Next by thread: Re: Abiogenisis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|