>You're playing word games and/or creating strawman arguments,
>methinks, Tom.  I'd guess everyone agrees that the sun was an
>energy source on the earth.  Call it what you will, but at point in
>time T, there was no life; while at point in time T', there was life.

No you are defining life as something unique that emerged
at some specific point in time.
I'm saying its something that developed as a response to the heat cycle.
They are not alike at all.

I would think you would define life as either replicating - or metabolism or
cell or something else.
I say all that is part of chemical response to a heat cycle.
We really are 180 degrees apart.

You suggest the sun was a PART.
I suggest life was a PART of the sun cycle.
How different can we get?

Without the sun, you won't have liquid water, chemical reactions that lead to
all these qualities, monomers etc.
If we could, then life could start in space or at absolute zero or in the
center of the sun.

We really really really are talking about two different paradigms completely.



Tom Hendricks,  Musea zine ed.
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com"
http://www.hunkasaurus.com ( "30" - CD now available)
Hunkasaurus & His Pet Dog Guitar
Musea Review Service (see Musea)
---
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 10/26/04 6:01:34 AM