<no sign of it spontaneously generating anywhere>
Agreed... but as I said conditions were different... some could point to that, regardless of our opinion as to which is "more hospitable" or "conducive to life"... since we don't understand it, we just don't know. Which is pretty much what scientists say, they just don't know.
<Since I'm not positing separate creations of life for each species, I don't feel a need to comment. >
And yet that's the way it "could" look, since clearly all the species didn't arise at the same time. BTW, what ARE you positing?
<Reproduction and spontaneous generation are of course two different things. >
The way it's defined by science today... yet if you're talking about a new 'spirit' coming to life (or even a recycled one) then it COULD be construed as that.
<I wouldn't use the term divinity - I'm sure not divine, nor is life.>
Well, that's just a matter of definitions... one could use the term "of the devine" then.
+Spontaneous generations" -<Life arising accidentally from non-living elements.>
I think your use of "accidental" is philisophical rather than scientific:
en.wikipedia.org
In any case, it's clear that it has little to do with evolutionary theory or science in general, other than science having shown the (at that time) concept to not be the case... at least normally.
DAK |
