Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2006 > Re: religion
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Pete Dashwood 2006-01-09, 6:59 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:JL3qf.20086$k76.4760@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
<snip>>
> Why do you say that? I don't know if man will ever be capable of creating
> life or not. That isn't the issue. But I believe the proposition that dirt
> formed itself into life is preposterous.
If you accept that the basis of life is a molecule that can reproduce itself
(DNA), then it should not escape your notice that there are two elements
that can combine with themselves: silicon and carbon.
If carbon atoms combine with themselves, that is a first step towards
reproducing themselves. If they combine with other simple substances (like
hydrogen, just to name one...) and then start hooking up with each other, it
is possible that eventually structures (like benzene rings, and other
radicals) will arise from this process. As these structures become
multiplied it is likely that sequences of them will form and, because of the
underlying "desire" (propensity, if you prefer...) of carbon to combine with
itself, these sequences are likely to become duplicated. It is hardly a huge
leap from this "behaviour" to a molecule that is driven to reproduce itself.
"A hen is an egg's way of making another egg."
Before you know it, you have complex organic molecules... from soot.
Life from dirt.
No divine intervention; just chemistry and physics over a very long period
of time.
Preposterous? No more so than the idea of a super hero taking clay and
breathing "life" into it...
>And that is the issue.
Well, if that is the issue, it isn't much of an issue... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Alistair 2006-01-11, 6:55 pm |
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2006 05:48:47 -0800, "Alistair"
> <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> If time does not exist, there can be no "past" to remember.
There is no past to remember but there is a moment which can be
remembered. You just can not travel back to it.
| |
|
| In article <1136987988.060986.86040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>There is no past to remember but there is a moment which can be
>remembered. You just can not travel back to it.
Ummmmm... if a 'moment' is a unit of time and time does not exist then a
'moment', either past or future, does not appear to be able to exist.
DD
|
|
|
|
|