Correction below:

"Brett Aubrey"  wrote in message
news:cm75pi$nj2$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> "TomHendricks474"  wrote in message
> news:cm67ml$deu$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >Since you lost the thread, here's some of it to which I responded
> earlier:
> >
> > >Check your Logic 101 notes.  If life was a part of the sun cycle, this
> > >means that life was 100% certain with the sun's presence.
> >
> > No:
> > Here are the possibilites
> > Sun comes first then life is POSSIBLE
> > leads to two possibilities:
> >
> > Sun comes first - life then follows OR
> > Sun comes first - but life doesn't follow.
>
> If A is part of B, then the existance of A means the existence of all
parts
> of A, meaning B, in this case.  But I understand your argument directly
> above, anyway.  Again, this precludes the possibility of hydrothermal
vents,
> which I do not think can be ruled out.  Similarly so with panspermia.

I meant to say:

If A is part of B, then the existance of B means the existence of all parts
of B, meaning A, in this case.  But I understand your argument directly
above, anyway.  Again, this precludes the possibility of hydrothermal vents,
which I do not think can be ruled out.  Similarly so with panspermia.

> > >I think we're closer than you think.  The difference, once again,
> > >is where (at what time) life became life.  And a symantic
> > >argument (perhaps) on the word "emerge".
> >
> > agreed.
>
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/3/04 5:57:44 AM