Posted on 04/08/2005 7:39:14 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
|
> If one "assumption/theory/guess/could be " is debunked, they have a meeting and think of another idea until some one kills that idea, too.
It's called "science." That's how it works.
Someone is almost sure to drop in and claim that Louis Pasteur "proved" that life can't be created from non-living material. This is a mis-understanding of the ancient term spontaneous generation. This website: The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation, explains what Pasteur actually did: he demonstrated that meat spoiled because of airborn microbes, not "spontaneously" by itself.
excellent.....
Wonderful. Let's see someone -- anyone -- replicate the creation of the simplest form of life from inorganic elements in a laboratory.
After 50 years of unsuccessful attempts, these experiments were virtually all discontinued in the late 90's.
Such a lot of nonsense.
50 years do not equate to millenia and much much more time.....how naive
"a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet"
= Were trolling for grant money.
I don't think the article suggests that DNA spontaneously appeared from electrifying protein precursors. The jury is still out on how DNA came to be.
Ping!
It's called biased guessing. Unless they have a time machine, it's all just speculation.
If "Science" were to spend as much time and money on proving creation like they do trying to disprove it, we'd all be wearing halos by now!
Luckily for good 'ol stubborn man kind, quantum psychics (GASP! Why, that's "science" too!) is finally catching up with religion, and it's about time.
So all it takes is a LOT of time, we can't engineer these things as a stepping stone?
Or how about this:
How long DOES it take for life to form by abiogenesis? Are there STAGES of living as opposed to non-living?
Seems like a fairly instant result if you have the right conditions, even if the living thing is short lived.
I would never have imagined that the top of the atmosphere would ever have been even 750 degrees. The ground temperatures must have been incredible.
Apparently, they discovered some ancient stone-carved leaflets that when translated stated all the rich creatures that bought those new "flowers" were filling the air with all that toxic oxygen and that the end of the world was coming.
Enlighten me. You'll be the the fifth anti-creationist to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about on this forum. Yet if you would tell me what you "know" you'd be the first.
If you claim life came about by "chance" then reducing the chances would increase the results. We are yet to see this fulfilled.
So, if scientists are successful at "creating" life, does that mean that that life came about because of "Intelligent Design"?
No. It would mean that life is such an easy step for organic chemistry that mere humans in a lab could do it. This would suggest (not prove) that -- contrary to the claims of some theolgians -- such matters do not require, much less prove, the activities of a deity.
My point is that traditionally, theologians have marveled at the existence of life, and have frequently declared that its very existence is a miracle. Evolution may have happened naturally, many of them admit, but the initial appearance of life is such an impossible thing that it must be the miraculous act of a deity.
Many science-minded folk have suggested that this kind of argument is a trap, because if life is ever created in the lab (by mere men) then the central miracle which sustains many theological systems will be in jeopardy.
Now, sensing that the "miracle" of life is soon to be created in a mundane lab by mere lab rats -- and not by gods and angels -- we can observe an almost instinctive moving of the goalposts. Now they'll demand an exact replication of the conditions on earth billions of years ago. And they'll then insist on perfect proof that those were indeed the young-earth conditions, etc. Endless objections will be raised. All of this is expected.
Every time an alleged "miracle" is demonstrated to be a natural occurence, those who require miracles will squeeze and spin and dance as much as necessary to still find something they can claim is a miracle -- that is, an event not yet explained or demonstrated.
However, even if the first time the "non-life to life" trick is done, the conditions don't mimic those on the young earth, it will nevertheless be momentous, because the trick will have been done. Without supernatural intervention. All the rest will be in the nature of mere sweeping up.
Miller did, and has done for the past 50 years, his experiments in a highly reduced atmopshere, ie: lots of hydrogen.
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.