Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2019 7:20 AM
25 online now:
PaulK, RAZD (2 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume:
Total: 861,868 Year: 16,904/19,786 Month: 1,029/2,598 Week: 275/251 Day: 3/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   Is Abiogenesis a fact?
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1932
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 256 of 303 (368318)
12-07-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by NOT JULIUS
12-07-2006 7:59 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
Nice dodge

Sorry, I choose to ignore foul-mouthed ones.

Well you're going to be ignoring most of the posters here then.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-07-2006 7:59 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 257 of 303 (368487)
12-08-2006 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by crashfrog
12-07-2006 8:46 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
Hi Crashfrog,
You wrote:
All I'm trying to tell you is that living things take nonliving matter and use it within themselves - they turn nonlife into life.

I do not dispute that assertion. It is a fact that we grow because our cells make use of non-living things ( like carbohydrates, etc)

But, what gets my goat is to suggest--as some of the posters I believe are trying to suggest--that the ORIGIN of life is a pre-biotic soup w/o a living & intelligent being in the picture.

Modulous actually stumped me on this when he pointed out to an Abrahmic God. I'll add that Chap 1 of Genesis says: 'in the beginning, the earth was void ( no life at all). Then God said, 'let the earth produce all kinds of creatures'.

In the sense that there was no life on earth until God commanded so, if in that sense "abiogenesis" is meant. Then, I won't disagree.

But, then again if a living God is the origin of life is it not "biogenesis", or "theogenesis" ,whatever?

I repeat for clarity, if your position is to disregard the Ultimate Living Cause as the origin of life, and if your position is similar to those who think that all living things come from a pre-biotic soup w/o His hand, then I disagree.

And, my disagreement is based on this simple equation: INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT. Someone w/ resources and knowledge has to manipulate that equation to come up w/ an output. Simply put, somebody started to switch on the process and here we are.

There is I think another line of thought--that He caused that pre-biotic soup to exist. This one I have no sufficient basis to agree or disagree. I would wait till more concrete proofs come in--and that might be eternity.

I hope this is clear to you.
PJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2006 8:46 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 3:25 PM NOT JULIUS has responded
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 5:22 PM NOT JULIUS has responded
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2006 6:21 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 303 (368493)
12-08-2006 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by NOT JULIUS
12-07-2006 5:32 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
This statement is not logical: 'If the chemicals needed for the first replicators were present in the early days of the earth, why don't you think they could have formed something that could be considered life, by definition?

Well it wasn't a statement it was a question. A 'why do you think' question. If you want to apply logic then I'll apply logic. Your answer to the question is a logical fallacy.

Has scientists ever re-created that 'presumably very simple life form'? None that I know of. Have they even been able to create true protein out of non living thing? No. They may be able to create the building blocks--the components--of protein (amino acid, etc) but not protein itself. If all the brains of these scientist and their controlled laboratories could not build (yet)one of the more complex component of life, how is it that they presumptously presume that life come from non life?

Your saying that because scientists have not been able to do it then it is impossible. You are arguing from personal incredulity.

But I understand what you are getting at and why you think it. It is a fine opinion.

I think that if you educated yourself in this area, about the early conditions of the planet and the requirements for the simplist life forms (replication and heredidty) then your incredulity will decline. It isn't all that improbable as you seem to think. Heck, it might even be inevitable.

This statement is not logical: 'If the chemicals needed for the first replicators were present in the early days of the earth, why don't you think they could have formed something that could be considered life, by definition?

The error in this statement lies in the confusion of what is SOME and what is ALL.

Huh? What do you mean?

Funny, but I think scientists who think that because chimps share 98% of DNA of men, men must have evolve from chimps are making fundamental errors in logic.

That and they are just plain wrong.

Just because a dog share SOME of the elements of a rock ( for example:carbon, iron, etc) doesn't mean a dog comes from a rock. The logical statement is: "because carbon, and iron are found in dogs and rocks, therefore dogs and rocks share SOME common elements".

Ok, but if a dog has an atom of calcium in his bone that used to be in a rock, then that living matter in the dog came from the rock and life has come from non-life....just not in the sense of the origin of life. Its not like the dogs cells break down the calcium past the atomic level and then re-engineer it back into calcium into its bone. The calcium stays as calcium and it came from the rock before it was in the dog.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-07-2006 5:32 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 3:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 259 of 303 (368498)
12-08-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 2:53 PM


Your Message # 258
Hi Catholic Scientist,

I think I have answered in advance (message # 257) what ever doubts you may have on my position.

PJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 2:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 303 (368499)
12-08-2006 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by NOT JULIUS
12-08-2006 2:30 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
But, what gets my goat is to suggest--as some of the posters I believe are trying to suggest--that the ORIGIN of life is a pre-biotic soup w/o a living & intelligent being in the picture.

and your argument is from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy. IMHO, that's fine...you don't have to have a logical argument for your personal beliefs.

Modulous actually stumped me on this when he pointed out to an Abrahmic God. I'll add that Chap 1 of Genesis says: 'in the beginning, the earth was void ( no life at all). Then God said, 'let the earth produce all kinds of creatures'.

In the sense that there was no life on earth until God commanded so, if in that sense "abiogenesis" is meant. Then, I won't disagree.

Yes, the bible definately has life comming from non-life.

But, then again if a living God is the origin of life is it not "biogenesis", or "theogenesis" ,whatever?

How about...creation.

I repeat for clarity, if your position is to disregard the Ultimate Living Cause as the origin of life, and if your position is similar to those who think that all living things come from a pre-biotic soup w/o His hand, then I disagree.

And, my disagreement is based on this simple equation: INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT.

The theory of abiogenesis conforms to your equation. It is your incredulity that has lead you to your belief. Again, I ask why don't you think that abiogenesis is possible other than scientist have not been able to duplicate it (yet)?

There is I think another line of thought--that He caused that pre-biotic soup to exist. This one I have no sufficient basis to agree or disagree. I would wait till more concrete proofs come in--and that might be eternity.

You should leave you opinion on abiogenesis to 'I don't know' rather than it is unresonable and not let your incredulity determine your position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 2:30 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 3:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 261 of 303 (368505)
12-08-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 3:25 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
Hi Catholic Scientist,
The theory of abiogenesis conforms to your equation. It is your incredulity that has lead you to your belief. Again, I ask why don't you think that abiogenesis is possible other than scientist have not been able to duplicate it (yet)?

I don't completely understand your question. So, I proceed from the assumption that GOD's power was NOT used to originate life. If this is the assumption, I disagree w/ the concept of abiogenesis. The equation just won't work. If God's power is invoked then I agree w/ abiogenesis as I have elaborated on my post # 257.

Why do I think that abiogenesis--w/o God's power--is possible? Simply for 2 reasons: (1) The equation won't work, (2) The burden of proof lies on the one that says otherwise. To clarify, if scientists say that life originated from non-life--w/o God's power or intervention--then they have to prove it. Do it in their labs.

I hope this is clear enough for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 3:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 3:55 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 303 (368508)
12-08-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by NOT JULIUS
12-08-2006 3:48 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
(1) The equation won't work

Well, there it is.

I think the equations do work.

Have you read any evidence that they don't work or are you basing this on your lack of evidence that they do?

Have you read much about the theory of abiogenesis?

If your basing it on a lack of evidence then you should educate yourself on the subject and reform your opinion.

The first life forms were extremely simple, not much different than non-living chemical reactions, so I don't see it as that big of a leap when they become 'alive'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 3:48 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 4:46 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 263 of 303 (368521)
12-08-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by New Cat's Eye
12-08-2006 3:55 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
Hi Catholic Scientist,
I think the equations do work.

Please clarify. The equation INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT will work Without God's hand? You mean that the scientists will come up w/ the ingredients of life, then they can process these ingredients in their sophisticated lab, and presto there will be a living thing?

Well, as the saying goes. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!
Let them do it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2006 4:51 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 303 (368522)
12-08-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by NOT JULIUS
12-08-2006 4:46 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
The equation INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT will work Without God's hand?

Yes.

You mean that the scientists will come up w/ the ingredients of life, then they can process these ingredients in their sophisticated lab, and presto there will be a living thing?

Yes, and they won't even have to say "presto".

Well, as the saying goes. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!
Let them do it.

Give them time.


Now, how about you answer my questions good sir.


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 4:46 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 303 (368527)
12-08-2006 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by NOT JULIUS
12-08-2006 2:30 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
But, what gets my goat is to suggest--as some of the posters I believe are trying to suggest--that the ORIGIN of life is a pre-biotic soup w/o a living & intelligent being in the picture.

No intelligent being was alive on Earth at the time life began. Moreover, we've never seen an intelligent being create life at all.

Rather, the only processes we've ever observed produce life from lifelessness are the mindless chemical processes at work in every living being. Thus, clearly, mindless processes can cause nonliving matter to become living.

I repeat for clarity, if your position is to disregard the Ultimate Living Cause as the origin of life, and if your position is similar to those who think that all living things come from a pre-biotic soup w/o His hand, then I disagree.

That's fine. Research into how completely natural processes produced life on the early Earth is ongoing, and as yet, there's nothing to support a definite conclusion. I think at this point, anybody's free to believe what they would like to believe. I don't find chemistry very interesting so it's not a very interesting question to me.

And, my disagreement is based on this simple equation: INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT.

The inputs would be the materials and chemicals that existed on that early Earth. The process would be the same laws of physics and chemistry that are operating to this day. The output would be the early chemical precursors of life.

Your simple equation doesn't pose a barrier to non-divine abiogenesis that I can see.

I hope this is clear to you.

Crystal. I hope my response is the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 2:30 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 6:07 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 269 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 6:28 PM crashfrog has responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 266 of 303 (368535)
12-08-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 5:22 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
Hi Catholic Scientist,
Have you read any evidence that they don't work or are you basing this on your lack of evidence that they do?
Have you read much about the theory of abiogenesis?

If your basing it on a lack of evidence then you should educate yourself on the subject and reform your opinion.

The first life forms were extremely simple, not much different than non-living chemical reactions, so I don't see it as that big of a leap when they become 'alive'.

My scanty evidence is that up till now scientists have been grapling to produce protein--real protein--the basic building block of "life". They have not yet done so. (some have claimed production of synthetic protein. But, did this synthetic ones come from non living organism--like from the scratch ?) . They were able to produce some (not all) amino acids that make up protein, but how these proteins fold is still a hurdle to them. The hurdle I believe is like landing a man in Venus??

And, even if they produce that "most basic form of life" that would still NOT preclude the hands of a DIVINE MAKER. Why? Just to build that "basic life form" took all the most brilliant minds to produce it. How much more for the "more complicated life form".?

Remember again the definition of a "Maker". One who has the resources and the necessary skills and knowledge to PROCESS INPUTS into desired OUTPUTS.

Up until now they still have the burden of proof. What Scientists are actually saying is this: 'we have discovered a horn, a horse, and a wing therefore there is a unicorn'.

give them time.

OK
This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 5:22 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 6:18 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2006 3:41 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 303 (368538)
12-08-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by NOT JULIUS
12-08-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
My scanty evidence is that up till now scientists have been grapling to produce protein--real protein--the basic building block of "life". They have not yet done so.

You know, you're the second guy to say this in a week, and I have to ask - who is telling you this?

There's no grapple necessary. There's about ten different cheap and easy techniques to synthesize arbitrary proteins in the lab. (And yes, they can start with amino acids that are synthetic in origin, although there's absolutely no difference between synthesized amino acids and amino acids harvested from living things.) The definitive textbooks on laboratory peptide synthesis were written in the 80's. These are not new techniques.

Whoever is informing you on the state of the art in laboratory bioscience clearly hasn't stepped foot in a lab in more than 30 years. Where did you get the impression that scientists didn't know how to produce real proteins?

The hurdle I believe is like landing a man in Venus??

The hurdle is more like predicting the weather - there's a lot of variables to compute, and as the problem grows in complexity, you need more computing cycles to predict the final quartenary structure. Protein fold modeling is a computer problem, nothing more.

And, even if they produce that "most basic form of life" that would still NOT preclude the hands of a DIVINE MAKER.

No, I guess not. There's no evidence that there is one, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 6:07 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20119
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 268 of 303 (368539)
12-08-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by NOT JULIUS
12-08-2006 2:30 PM


but Life ONLY from Life is Not Reasonable
First off, welcome to the fray, pilate_judas.

It appears you have dragged out a number of responses to this question, one that does keep re-appearing on these forums.

But, what gets my goat is to suggest--as some of the posters I believe are trying to suggest--that the ORIGIN of life is a pre-biotic soup w/o a living & intelligent being in the picture.

What I can see is that when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty answer ... is that we don't know.

It could be one it could be another, it could be some answer nobody has yet considered, but in the end ... we don't know.

Modulous actually stumped me on this when he pointed out to an Abrahmic God.

My personal belief, as a Deist, is that the universe was created with a maximum of diversity and intentional chaos in order to achieve the most diverse possible kinds of life and experience, but also that the universe was primed for life to develop.

I have put together a rather extensive essay on the possibilities, the things we do know, the building blocks we can point to as possible paths. It is located at RAZD - Building Blocks of Life. This is not meant to be definitive but indicitive and subject to modification as new information becomes available (it was written a year ago, and some posts do add new information). Feel free to read and comment there as you wish.

My first message to you, Message 249, may have seemed a little abrupt in it's final assertion, which I have toned down to

We also see pre-biotic self replicating systems. They come from pre-biotic self replicating systems.

We have cup-cakes as well as cakes.

Simply put, life may have come from pre-biotic self replicating systems.

I feel this position is amply substantiated by my essay on building blocks to be a perfectly reasonable position.

Again, the bottom line is that we don't know.

Now let's take your assertion:

Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable

And, my disagreement is based on this simple equation: INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT.

As I said before, nobody is claiming that there was not {INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT}, but that the input + process are not limited to being life to get output as life -- they could be {pre-biotic replicating systems + energy + substrates that catalyze formation}.

Therefore to keep pushing this 'equation' as proof that life could not come from {pre-biotic replicating systems + energy + substrates that catalyze formation} is not being intellectually honest or logically consistent, but falling back on assertion based on the argument from ignorance and incredulity (as others have pointed out).

Denial of evidence that contradicts your position is not faith.

But let me now turn your main "complaint" around and say:

Life ONLY from Life is Not Reasonable

For then you never answer the question of where the first life came from.

You may think you know and have a final answer, that some god or other always existed -- but that ends up being a special pleading logical fallacy, excluding discussion of where that god came from, a 'favor' for one side not given to the other.

Ultimately life came from something not-life-as-we-know-it, whether that something was imbued with spirit or not ... we don't know.

I don't know if your read Jar's post, Message 250, where he said:

There is ample evidence that there was a time when life did not exist on earth.

There is ample evidence that life now exists on earth.

So, anyone who hints or suggests that life did not come from non-life has to provide the model that shows some other source for life.

There was a time when there was only non-life.

Later there was life and non-life.

If life did not come from the non-life, just what DID it come from.

I'm not so sure we can set a time when we absolutely know there was no life -- just not likely life as we know it ... and yet we keep finding life in more and more extreme conditions of heat and pressure ... even living off radiation deep in the earth. We also find pre-biotic compounds in outer space ... the far reaches of outer space, where they could not have come from earth.

What we do know, is that the oldest rocks we can find that are capable of showing signs of life that we can recognize -- rocks 3.5 billion years old -- that those rocks do show signs of life, it was already here.

There is also some disputed evidence that may push it back to 3.7 or 3.9 billion years, but it would still be life already existing at the limits of our ability to detect it.

Before that, we don't know. Life may have existed for some time before then ... we don't know.

It could even be true that life existed during the big inflation of the universe, that remnants of that life was sprayed out into to the universe and what we see around us is but a poor survivor remnant or some weak reconstruction of that first life, or it may be what that first life intended to happen ....

We don't know.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 2:30 PM NOT JULIUS has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-08-2006 6:44 PM RAZD has responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 269 of 303 (368542)
12-08-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by crashfrog
12-08-2006 5:22 PM


Re: Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable
Hi Crashfrog,
Rather, the only processes we've ever observed produce life from lifelessness are the mindless chemical processes at work in every living being. Thus, clearly, mindless processes can cause nonliving matter to become living.

Please read my post #266 re. who a maker is. You call it "mindless processes". I'll call it "automatic process mode" set by a mind more brilliant than all scientists combined.

That's fine. Research into how completely natural processes produced life on the early Earth is ongoing, and as yet, there's nothing to support a definite conclusion. I think at this point, anybody's free to believe what they would like to believe.

It's anybody's guess. I bet mine on the improbability of the odds, you bet the opposite?

The inputs would be the materials and chemicals that existed on that early Earth. The process would be the same laws of physics and chemistry that are operating to this day. The output would be the early chemical precursors of life.

You are saying that yes the equation is there, therefore it can be done, right? I say, you forgot the "solver" (in a manner of speaking). Its just like this formula. 2X + 5 = 15. Without one to solve the equation, the "X" will remain an "X".

Your simple equation doesn't pose a barrier to non-divine abiogenesis that I can see.

As it is anybody's guess, I bet the opposite.

I really enjoyed this exchange! I hope you did. And I appreciate the fact that You, Crashfrog,Catholic Scientist, and Modulous were courteous. I just hope that you found me courteous too.

kind regards,
PJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 5:22 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by crashfrog, posted 12-08-2006 6:44 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 270 of 303 (368545)
12-08-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by RAZD
12-08-2006 6:21 PM


Re: but Life ONLY from Life is Not Reasonable
Hi Radz,
First off, welcome to the fray, pilate_judas.
What I can see is that when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty answer ... is that we don't know.
It could be one it could be another, it could be some answer nobody has yet considered, but in the end ... we don't know.

Thanks for welcoming me. I can only agree that yes, what we are doing here is speculation. Bets are on per my post #269. Let's wait and see what they will come up next.

PJ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2006 6:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2006 8:22 PM NOT JULIUS has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019