Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: econjack

“Why would that be any different than our experience here on Earth? At what point did we progress from non-life to what we see around us today?”

If you could scientifically establish the answer to that question, you’d probably win a Nobel prize. As of yet no scientist has been able to do that though.

“So we must have made the progression...”

See, this is what is known as a non sequitur, because the conclusion does not follow from the preceding data. Just because there was a point where there was no life on Earth and now there is life doesn’t automatically lead to the conclusion that life sprang spontaneously from non-living material. Science cannot establish that it is even possible that such a thing could happen, and they also cannot rule out the other possibilities that might account for the origin of life. So as soon as you make this assumption, you have ceased to make a scientific, or even a logical argument.


53 posted on 06/22/2016 2:04:02 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman
That's not what I'm saying at all. Indeed, I think meteors and comments may have brought the elements for life here. It well could be outside agents. My point is that, regardless of how it happened, it did happen and I see no reason to think it didn't happen elsewhere. If you believe that God is responsible for life, do you think God's vision is limited to Earth if He is the father of the universe? Why would He not extend life to other planets? Pure science and theology both point to life elsewhere in the universe.
88 posted on 06/22/2016 6:03:20 PM PDT by econjack (I'm not bossy...I just know what you should be doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson