the source of life

You might find it causes unnecessary confusion to equivocate over terms, or use terms that very few people use, during a debate. It'll just end up becoming a semantic debate over those terms and the argument will get lost. For evidence: see this thread.I suggest you either find a new term, or create one. How about 'Universal Evolution', or to avoid confusion with Teilhard's theory, "The modern interpretation of Universal Evolution". This will still cause some confusion no doubt, but it might make things a little better.I mentioned a similar thing in your other thread:

quote:

---

Well, let's not get confused over evolution/big bang and all that. Let us simply say that according to the physicalism metaphysics and the conclusions of science based on methological {sic} naturalism...

---

the principles of world view. Did you lose interest in that one? Conducive? Is that the word you meant to use? As to what evolution originally meant, we can look it up:

quote:

---

1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" (see vulva). Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That Jack T Chick tract came out in 2002. I think Chick took it from one of Hovind's seminars or from his infamous $250k challenge:Taken from here - I am fairly sure they predate 2002.Hovind is hardly a stellar (heh) source either though.

I'm not sure what relationship you think 'making sense' should have to 'being true'. It makes sense that all other things being equal, heavier things should fall faster than lighter things but it doesn't pan out that way.After all, something that makes sense to Bob might not make any sense to Wakhashem. If Bob is a civil engineer in 21st Century New York and Wakhashem is a priest in 1st Dynasty Egypt, then there is bound to be significant differences between what makes sense to each of them.If you and Wakhashem were to somehow cross paths, what makes sense to him (Wakhashem might think it makes sense that Ra/Khepri brought forth the earth and physically placed it on justice and order (the primal stable foundation of reality, Maat) and that man formed from his tears) would not make sense to you (and visa versa, I'm sure Wakhashem would stare at you like you were a lunatic when you tried to explain to him that a single deity is in control of all things and that this God is an eternal source of 'work-performing-forces' and that the universe is composed of billions of galaxies filled with things trillions the times the size of Egypt that are exploding with a violence a million times more powerful than oil etc etc)I would have thought that some kind of systematic methodology for sorting through these kinds of things is precisely the kind of thing we should look to when trying to resolve the matter when two people with different concepts of what makes sense.

I think the words used were

quote:

---

life can flourish in the most extreme places

---

This is an observed fact, within certain boundaries, for which Larni provided a source. What experiment does it 'defy'?

It suggests that thinking that life can only exist in an environment that is comfortable to mammals is fallacious reasoning. Proto-life is often theorized to have spent time under water. Water absorbs UV light.

That's right, I don't know that. Nor do I know that a circle is square. Do you know how much energy is required to 'further chemical reaction'? How does this compare with the quantity of energy next to an underwater thermal vent?Now - since your posts have been very short, I am not sure how much biochemistry you actually know. I would hazard a guess at 'not much' based on what I have seen so far (in itself that's no big deal, I'm no expert either. The thing is, I don't go around implying that I know better than the people that do biochemistry as a full time job). It is true that water can be problematic when it comes to certain chemical reactions. So, one might suppose that some kind of catalyst might come into play to overcome this inhibition. Biochemists that are studying the origin of life have shown that certain clays can act as catalysts in the formation of more complex molecules.If you know a great deal more than you are letting on, perhaps you could spend the time to spell out your argument rather than continue with the rather enigmatic and short posts you have posted so far?