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

To: DaveLoneRanger
Furthermore, it's not that you don't know how life started, it's that NO MATTER WHAT, you'll eventually have to contrive a mechanism that defies naturalism, because life from non-life is inherently unscientific

Saying something over and over again without supporting it is the hallmark of the propagandist. "We can't drill our way out"; "It'll be a decade before it comes on line"; "Life from non-life is unscientific".

If life from non-life is unscientific, then what about non-life from life? Popes and paramecia die. One minute they live the next minute they don't. Suddenly they begin to revert to chemicals.

Ultimately, biological death is a result of simple chemistry. People have had their heart and brain function stopped (they "died")by cooling and then had them restored by warming. Warmth is necessary for the chemical reactions that are life.

If life ceases and restarts due to chemical processes, it is reasonable to hypothesize that life originated through the evolution of chemical processes. That hypothesis is being tested in laboratories all over the world.

Will you offer some support for your statement that the study of "life from non-life is unscientific"?

261 posted on 06/22/2008 3:12:52 AM PDT by Soliton (Investigate, educate, then opinionate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]


To: Soliton

I predict in a day or two the anti-science crowd will return, ignore the last 20 posts and start their screed from the beginning.


262 posted on 06/22/2008 2:09:30 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | 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