|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Diana asked:
|
 |
How did life beginning?
|
 |
In Spanish: 'Como inicio la vida?'
|
 |
I hope that you know the answer.
|
 |
============
|
 |
No one "knows" the answer to that question. But there are some very good guesses. Go here:
|
 |
http://human-nature.com/nibbs/
|
 |
and look around for a while. Don't be intimidated. Just look around.
|
 |
Steven Ravett Brown
|
 |
Like every other philosopher and scientist, I wish I knew! The only option we have is to choose what
we regard to be the most likely of the several theories presented to us. Religion offers us an instant
creation notion, all the plants, animals, fish, creeping things and a pair of humans, male and female,
miraculously appearing fully grown and developed. There are problems here however, when it is
claimed that the off-spring of Adam and Eve go into another country to find wives. Very confusing! I
wonder where they came from?
|
 |
Science, though a bit more logical, fairs little better. Here we have the not too convincing idea that
molecules were brought together in mud pools to form the first living cells, the energy being provided
by heat from the earth's crust, and/or lightning. From then on humans eventually developed through a
series of very fortuitous accidents, having first been some sort of multicellular organism, then maybe
fish, then some sort of four legged mammal, progressing to bipedal ape, then a sort of hairy half
human, half ape creature before becoming what we now recognise as intelligent humans.
|
 |
The problem with both these materialistic ideas is about the production of material particles from a
vacuum. Because both religion and science are blinkered by the matter myth it is unlikely that the
answer will come from either of these sources. Although one must admit that advances in the science
of physics are beginning to shed new light on the problem of origins. In my opinion the answer, if
there ever is one, is more likely to come from the more open approach of philosophy. There are those
however, like the philosopher Kant, who believe that many answers to questions about the world and
nature are beyond the reach of the mind of man. None of the theories so far produced are in a
position to be proved either right or wrong, true or untrue, therefore, they must remain in doubt.
|
 |
John Brandon
|
|