Janic
it starts from great theoretical principles, unsuited to living matter, since without this vital principle, everything becomes again dust precisely absent from life, final entropy.
But all of this has already been seen and reviewed without providing an answer on life and not on the animation of matter where, despite all technological science, no one has succeeded in creating it…. Nowadays !
sen no sen
Judaism is not representative of creationist circles which are essentially to be related to American Christian movements or recent Islamic currents (harun yahya etc cie).
Who cares to know if, in the basket of apples, there are healthy and rotten ones, it is the life. But to retain ONLY the rotten ones as being representative of apples, it is a moral deception.
sen no sen
For the former the age of 6000 is often reported, but as I mentioned, most of its authors do not all agree ...
Either bad apples. What you are talking about is only a tiny non-representative and non-theological minority. But what matters, once again, is not what is rotten (in the sense of degraded) but what is healthy.
sen no sen
The age of the universe may be more (or less) important than we think, this does not change the theory of evolution (second principle of thermodynamics).
On the contrary, your principle, not accepted by all and even less in quantum physics, is only an aspect limited to raw matter, pebbles, not to living things where this only applies very partially and from many a priori due to our ignorance of what life really is (eg Miller's experiments on amino acid reconstruction.)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exp%C3%A9 ... iller-Ureysen no sen
To imagine that the world was created by a demiurge X years ago remains an evolutionary thesis, because this one is based on the principle of the arrow of time (future past). However, this thesis is in no way compatible with our observations.
Still a priori and presuppositions from the East and its eternal cycles that we want to confront with the postulates of a world created and not appearing by chance. On the one hand there is not a demiurge (it is only a cerebral representation intended to be admitted in temporal cultures) who would construct such or such a system or object in a particular time for that time only. But we HUMAN BEINGS are in a particular time of which WE decide its dimension to satisfy our needs for reference points. A billion, 1000 billion or 1/1000 of a billion is the same thing in another system which does not take these references there as so-called temporal benchmarks. Get out of these images of Epinal made for simplifying minds who arrange them.
Janic
And blah blah, your orientalist beliefs, compared with accidentalist beliefs, have no more or less value than any other. Also your persistence, linked to this belief, to reduce it to politics rather than history is characteristic, but not credible.
sen no sen
According to your approach, no system of thought has more value than another, in short, believing in the tinkerbell or in contemporary cosmology would be on the same level.
Exactly, everything comes from our imagination, our mental construction of the world which passes from the pure imagination, the tinker bell, to the materialist imagination permanently where everything merges!
sen no sen
It's good to believe it, but it doesn't get anywhere.
Everything is useless! We are just a breath that appears and disappears as quickly as it came, ephemeral dust in this universe, and of which we still do not understand its reason for existing (fortunately, moreover, humans are already sufficiently proud of 'themselves)
sen no sen
This is good because at one point there was a thought system that supported solid theories that we can currently communicate at lightning speed.
it is scientism!
Who cares about this materialist vision which concerns only a tiny minority of bulb heads who try (but hardly succeed) to understand and explain what the vast majority of living beings have nothing to do with to do, their one and only concern is to live and not to suffer too much in this one before dying, ephemeral flame among the others.
Janic
It starts from great theoretical principles, unsuited to living matter, since without this vital principle, everything becomes again dust precisely absent from life, final entropy.
But all this has already been seen and reviewed without providing an answer on life and not on the animation of matter where, despite all technological science, no one has succeeded in recreating it…. Nowadays !
sen no sen
And what will you say on the day or researchers will succeed to create synthetic life? Will you end your life?
I have already largely answered on this fantasy which also leads to transhumanism, the human being becomes god, even more than god still! But everything in appearance only! To recreate life again, it would be necessary to know what it is, already!
The only fact that you say
will succeed and not would succeed, (future and not conditional) already underlines this a priori on human vanity which has no doubt that it could be so!
sen no sen
More seriously speaking of a vital impetus has little value, what is an impetus? What is vital? This is semantics.
No momentum but
principle, this word used everywhere and for anything!
Inevitably, these are just words with the limited scope of our vocabulary, and inventing substitute words does not change much like chance = indeterminism as opposed to determinism.
sen no sen
As already seen elsewhere: one cannot explain a partial ignorance by the means of a total unknown.
This is the only point on which we fully agree. We do not know anything about life and a theological and even less scientific explanation does not allow it. "
Vanity, vanities, all is vanity and pursuit of the wind! »
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré