>Wrong.  But if life started here it *did not* begin before that, since the
>sun was shining ~5.0 BYA(?).  And either way, the sun was likely a
>major factor for life here (as we've agreed upon before).

No that's probably not true. At first the earth had an oppressive atmosphere 
that , coupled with other aspects - made the atmosphere opaque.
It was only when it cooled to the point where the steam began to turn to rain
and fall and form the oceans - that that rain took some of the atmosphere with
it and allowed the sun to shine through for the first time. Maybe around 4.2 at
the earliest.


>> But for all these processes that are needed -
>> you have to have energy - and the only energy
>> of note at this time was the sun (see chart)
>
>Chart?
>
>> Where else?
>
>Volcanic activity, for example.  Possibly (major) impacts, as well.
>Lightening for a third (and yes, even though the sun helps this
>along, 

Please see other threads posted today.
The sun is  40,000 x stronger than all
other radiation combined!

>> All I need is a heat cycle - something cyclical
>> a variable but cyclical energy source - with
>> certain other necessary conditions.
>
>Until you can produce life from these, you can't be sure.  (I'll admit I
>can't be sure of my case either but yours seems infinitely more improbable
>to me.)

True but I can get you started - Miller's experiment
was a heat cycle - the sun works well, and a problem
leveled at Miller was that he introduced the 'lightning"
charge in a very methodical way that would not be
present in nature. So a heat cycle does work best so far.


>
>Now take the same concept and reverse it.  At some time T, there was nothing
>we would consider "life" on this planet while at time T'
there was (true
>whether T' > T was 1 second or 314,967,278 years.)  There'd be something
>with a spark of life involved at time T'.  You simply *have* to agree with
>this, don't you? 

I don't know how I would define it - why do we need
to even have one?


 
>This is still relevant in a panspermia scenario, where life may not have
>existed on the planet until a small sample fell to its surface, got stuck
>in
>the high atmosphere, etc., etc.

If panspermia happens, I agree with you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>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. 



 
> 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 11/1/04 4:35:56 PM