Re: Is Abiogenesis falsifiable?
- From: Mujin <umwinkl0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:12:34 -0500
In article <1595039.fTDF5qy6bt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, psychonaut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
Greetings.
In article <1150545544.330270.227000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
dgenglish@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I'll agree, that among scientists who study this sort of thing, there
is an assumption that at one time in the very distant past, life
originated from non-living matter by some natural means. Call that a
hypothesis, if you will. The only alternate hypothesis I can think of
is that life has existed forever, which seems to run in conflict with
the finite age of the universe.
There is another, simpler alternate hypothesis, namely that living matter
was created at the same time as nonliving matter. This is slightly less
absurd in that it doesn't conflict with the hypothesis that the universe
has a finite age. However, it does conflict with what we know about the
most popular theory about the beginning of the universe, since the Big
Bang is not thought to have produced atoms larger than lithium, let alone
complex hydrocarbons or even simple organisms.
Actually, it only conflicts with the ideas we have regarding the nature of "life"
.
- References:
- Is Abiogenesis falsifiable?
- From: Texas Boy
- Re: Is Abiogenesis falsifiable?
- From: dgenglish
- Re: Is Abiogenesis falsifiable?
- From: Texas Boy
- Re: Is Abiogenesis falsifiable?
- From: dgenglish
- Re: Is Abiogenesis falsifiable?
- From: Tristan Miller
- Is Abiogenesis falsifiable?
- Prev by Date: Re: Second Annual Evolution Sunday -- 11 February 2007
- Next by Date: Re: Faster fossils on top?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Abiogenesis falsifiable?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Abiogenesis falsifiable?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|