Hi Alfred. Just a few thoughts before Admin. might want to respond.
The first thing that comes to mind is, this (to me) seems more of a rant than a topic proposal. Admin proposed in
Message 288 for each member to summerize their final position. Here is yours
dialetical unity
Well, the dialectical opposition here is between very great and very small. The average which is the result of the clash between great and small is the resulting third term. In this case this is the ordinary scale of existence. What is your objection to that? Great and small are implied in each other while the average is implied in both as the middle term. That's both dialectics and relativity for you and as I contend both dialectics and relativity are cavalierly disregarded in the consensus cosmology I am opposed to. Well, relativity is paid a lot of lip-service to in the process of being denied.
Simple.
Im not sure anyone understands what that means. Maybe your PNT should try and make your postion more clear so that even the lay person(s) can understand it.
In
Message 289 Omnivorous writes:
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that life is an intrinsic property of the universe, requiring neither abiogenesis nor supernatural creation. I see no other way for this to be so except to posit an eternally existing universe
You respond:
Well, Omnivorous, that was a fair summation of my position considering.
Otherwise, the question is how hardy life is? It is understood that the environment is extremely unwelcoming. Cosmos is a killer. While what I observe inside myself is that the basic vital impulse is just as persistent. It feels like an irresistible force too. So that's a struggle. Could there be a winner or is it that no matter how harsh and seemingly impossible the conditions are, it is equally impossible to destroy all of life completely so some life will always go on?
You ask for evidence but as I said there is no conclusive evidence so far to support either of the positions- that of abiogenesis and that of panspermia.
The problem here is simple. This site is particularly interested in Scientific evidence. You state you have none for your postion. What Evolutionist often critisize Creationists about is that (we) have no evidence, and simply pick apart the theories that support current positions, i.e. "The theory of evolution" with our hole punchers.
If you want to propose a new thread to show why Hawking and Augustine (and Crashfrog) are wrong then you need to provide an alternative working hypothesis in a way where even I can understand it or atleast the best of the Science minds here.
Hawking fundamentally is no advance on St. Augustine is my view. I can tear St. Augustine's position to shreds and when I do that Hawking finds himself in the same trash bin by default
That may very well be true, so what is your alternative to abiogenesis and how can we discuss it in a way that doesn't end up in the religious section?
Is it your faith or belief that disproves Hawking wrong then simply say so. There is no shame in it.
If you have no evidence (which the Science section requires) join the club and come over to the religious section where we can philisophically discuss this topic. Again, there is no shame in that. Sometimes faith is all we have and it can be a lot. It doesn't make it not true, just not provable at the current time.
Where would you like this topic proposal to be? If it is in the Religion section no need for the hypothesis. If you want it in the Science section, get to work.
Edited by AdminChuck, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminChuck, : edited "If you have no proof " to "If you have no evidence"