The Prejudice of Being Too Objective - response
- From: TomHendricks474@xxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:55:08 -0400 (EDT)
All hail to thee, eternal spiritual Sun, who burns forever yet is not
consumed!
Life needs an energy source. However the first life may well have used the
temperature gradient caused by volcanic vents to power chemical reactions.
The source of this energy is radioactive decay of heavy metals in the
Earth's interior, and not solar.
Tom
No. I don't think so. There are a LOT of problems with the vents:
1. earth is here because of the sun. 2. vents sterilize more than build
3. there is no cycle to the vents. 4. there is no wet/dry aspect such
that dry would help condensation reactions of sugars, amino acids,
nucleotides, 5. there is no UV. 6. vents are unstable, the sun cycle is
constant. 7. And finally, take the sun out and you have no planet,
no vents, etc.
plus many more.
On the more theological point, our understanding is that there is no
intelligent intervention in basic physical processes.
Tom
Agreed but don't lock me into a either or situation - either
its theo or its a fluke. The third choice, a reaction to a sun cycle
is the one I choose. And many scientists seem to frown on any
non fluke choice as being unscientific. I think the blindness to
life as a reaction to the sun, not a fluke independent event,
is the real prejudiced.
My own view is that
this is probably an artifact of our current level of science. If the
sciences form a hierarchy with partical physics at the bottom and sociology
at the top, we understand the middle fairly well but not the extremes.
However no one is saying that your theory of consciousness, when you come to
claim that Nobel prize, cannot involve some non-human intelligence.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Next by Date: Wet/dry
- Previous by thread: Re: The Prejudice of being too Objective
- Next by thread: Re: The Prejudice of Being Too Objective - response
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
