Skip to comments.Did Comets Contain Key Ingredients For Life On Earth?
Posted on 06/06/2009 10:52:58 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
While investigating the chemical make-up of comets, Prof. Akiva Bar-Nun of the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences at Tel Aviv University found they were the source of missing ingredients needed for life in Earth's ancient primordial soup. "When comets slammed into the Earth through the atmosphere about four billion years ago, they delivered a payload of organic materials to the young Earth, adding materials that combined with Earth's own large reservoir of organics and led to the emergence of life," says Prof. Bar-Nun.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
I was rather amused at the external, sudden nature of this event proposed by Prof. Bar-Nun, and found unintended parallels with Genesis 1:1. That is why I chose to spoof Bar-Nun's quasi-religious notion involving primordial soup and his proposed Great Comet.
Biblically speaking, from Genesis, the forms of life appeared in a particular order, with aquatic creatures and birds first among the moving creatures. It's a distinction that is garbled in the translation that you chose to cite, which mistakenly attributes motion to the waters. Before aquatic creatures and birds came grasses, seed-yielding herbs and fruit trees ... fixed, planted in place, not moving. These creatures appeared after their kind, which does not imply newness of the creature, as they were of a known type ... prototype, perhaps.
New to the earth, yes. But, not new to God.
My 1963 is spacious front and back, and no head rests or floor shifter to get in the way!
....and I assume you can?
It was the chemical composition of comets, Prof. Bar-Nun believes, that allowed them to kickstart life. He has published his theory widely in scientific journals, including recently in the journal Icarus.
Already reached the status of scientific theory has it? What's all this nonsense about reproducibility, experimentation, duplication, and falsifiability then?
EXACTLY, sheer nonsense! All that is dismissed when it suits liberal sensistivities but let something even remotely impact liberals over their relationship with God, THEN all that suddenly is relevant again.
It's about God, not science. Liberals project-alot.
What is truly remarkable is that it is easy for such persons to accept a quantum fluctuation in whatever producing an entire universe involving superluminal expansion yet those same people probably laugh at the thought of a few fish and loaves coming from fewer fish and loaves.
I once owned a Comet. It was from Mercury and it too crashed into the earth leaving behind trace elements of front fender.
Where did the "Earth's primordial soup" come from..hmmmmm???
Did these large, complex, organic molecules, and biomolecules supposedly making up this primordial soup just willy-nilly synthesize themselves from inorganic precursers for no particular reason?
And even if complex organic molecules did synthesize themselves (doubtful given the stoichiometry/kinetics/thermodynamics involved) why wouldn't they just degrade and detoriate in a few days, weeks, or months like all modern organics do?
Just curious because someone should really explain how this "primordial soup" starting material got here.
I’m just curious why you’d ask a religious question in a science topic.
Nope, that’s Bar-Nun’s point. :’)
So comets had organic material, earth had organic material, one crashed into the other 4 billion years ago, but the bigger one couldn't have possibly developed life on it's own without the help of the smaller one?
And because he has a degree, he must know what he's talking about...
Oh, wait. It's in the form of a question. He's either on Jeopardy or he's just making an educated guess!
I'll take "Pompous Know-It-All's" for $200 Alex!
Direct your hostility toward someone else, thanks.
It was directed at the author of the story, not you.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Another excellent observation.
"It was the chemical composition of comets, Prof. Bar-Nun believes, that allowed them to kickstart life. He has published his theory widely in scientific journals, including recently in the journal Icarus.
"Already reached the status of scientific theory has it? What's all this nonsense about reproducibility, experimentation, duplication, and falsifiability then?"
By definition, a "theory" is a "confirmed hypothesis." But confirmed by what, and how? And just who says, "yup, that's confirmed"?
Here's my theory: for sake of their already minuscule circulations, scientific journals don't want to talk about "hypotheses," much less "some scientist's wet dream," so they call anything and everything laying by the side of the road "a new scientific theory."
Of course, that makes it harder to distinguish the Real Thing when it (rarely) comes along. Also makes it harder to tell faux scientists (aka "creationists") that their "theories" are just religion.
But, they've got to sell their magazines, so what's a little blurring of distinctions amongst friends?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.