James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by BBella , Tuesday, July 07, 2009, 17:02 (5401 days ago) @ John Clinch

BBella says "Life emerging from non-life would be a real jump of evolution, wouldn't it? Some-thing from no-thing?"
> 
> But it wouldn't be "no-thing". It would be everything that exists, the physical fabric of the Universe out of which we arose and which we are. The Universe seems poised to allow life to arise in certain (doubtless very rare) conditions. From stardust, to the human mind. The amazing hypothesis is also the most obvious: we are as much a part of it as ground upon which we walk and the stars over our heads. - Yes, John, this is exactly my point. Life does not emerge from non-life or no thing, it emerges from all that is...as you put it- the physical fabric of the universe out of which we arose and which we [all] are. This is, we are, the ever existing, ever evoliving universe. - >[dhw wrote:]This whole discussion has everything to do with belief, i.e. with what seems plausible to us. - I agree dhw, everything has to do with belief and with that which seems plausible to each individual. - >In answer to BBella, I can only say that I would not dare to argue against the theory of the Big Bang, which is as far back as we can ever go. This has to mark a beginning, and the Earth has to have had a beginning, and so life on Earth has to have had a beginning. But of course "ever existing" and "ever evolving" can't be disproved, just as God can't be disproved. - I do not feel I am arguing against the theory of the Big Bang. Everything has it's beginning, but they all arise the same, from that which came before. This means to me there are no true "beginnings" only marked changes that we who are observers of these changes mark...all which is nothing more than one ever evolving Uni-verse.