Origin of Life: new commentaries (Introduction)

by romansh , Saturday, February 05, 2011, 18:22 (5019 days ago) @ David Turell

Don't give up. There has got to be an explanation you can accept without 'tongue-in-cheek'. Perhaps pan-spermia, which only shifts the same problem to another part of the universe. Perhaps magical clays which can hold together necessary chemicals before they drift away. Perhaps an RNA world, but how did that start. There are lots of 'perhapses', but nothing concrete. What or who did it? The odds are 50/50 of being right, I admit that: chance or purpose. I will logically pick teleology every time. Aristotle and First Cause all the way.-Well of course my reply was firmly tongue in cheek. -I suppose my point is 'science' in a recognizable form has really going on for maybe five or six hundred years. Though I suppose I should also give some credit to philosophers that go back through the millenia. -Eitherway science is not an endpoint where we come to a conclusion god exists or does not exist, or life is too complex to have arisen spontaneously. Science just chips away finding 'descriptions' that allow us to make predictions.-My point is, you appear to have come to some panentheist (or universal intelligence, whatever?) conclusion and say fine this where we can stop looking. You assume there has to be a first cause. Your evidence? -There only has to be a first cause in a Euclidean universe.