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

by BBella @, Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 18:57 (5365 days ago) @ David Turell

All life could be ever existing and ever evolving, couldn't it? Life emerging from non-life would be a real jump of evolution, wouldn't it? Some-thing from no-thing?
> 
> Life is not ever-existing. That is exactly the problem. Inorganic chemicals are non-living. Organic chemicals are also non-living until they organize into life. Life leaves behind telltale signs of life as deposited waste products and corpses. The earliest on Earth of these substances is either 3.8-3.6 billion years old in Greenland. That is how long ago it is scientifically accepted that life appeared on Earth.> - New life has happened here...my daughter recently gave birth to a happy healthy baby boy and, since they live with us, it's amazing how much time and space one new life takes up in a household. - I did want to respond to the above David, thank you for your response and patience. Altho life (the substance of which you are speaking above) did appear on earth so many billions of years ago, the properties it took to create this life have been around much longer, which is what my comment was aiming at. In the sense that our new born baby's physical elements have been around since time began - or in my way of thinking - has always been. When I said "life" in the above comment, I was thinking more of the elements of life, what life is made of/from, rather than the being which breathes air. I think of the universe and all that IS as one breathing "life" form that is ever evolving ever living being with every element that is or ever will be within it's framework....which includes us.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum