"Many theories have been proposed for the origin of life on earth. All are highly speculative. Some are silly and others, more interesting, are perhaps even capable of being tested. In a class of its own, and at first glance a cop-out, is the hypothesis that life did not originate on earth at all, but was 'seeded' from outer space. First put forward seriously by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius about 100 years ago and generally known as 'panspermia', the hypothesis is explored with wit and style in this book by Francis Crick.
"What it achieves is that it solves the embarrassing problem of how, within a few billion years after the earth cooled, extraordinary complex forms of self-reproducing entities appeared on earth. The price paid for this achievement is, of course, is that it begs the question entirely of how reproduction and metabolism could arise in the first place. Overall, I would rate the book as informative and thought-provoking. I recommend reading this book along with 'Origins' by Shapiro: that reviews, also wittily, the case for and against various theories for the origin of life ON earth.
You can also look at Wikipedia. Here, they discuss the basics and then assume Crick lost interest as research into RNA permitted the chance occurrence of life a quicker time frame. I am skeptical as to whether Crick actually said this.
One thing for sure, Crick was an adamant atheist who also testified in several trials for evolution and against intelligent design. Panspermia sounds more scientific and permits the possibility of micro-evolution.
With respect, I am not.
The quote from your original post is from Fred Hoyle; A number of Creationist websites (and one can only presume such was your source) misattributes it to Crick. This is Dan Ratherism on their part, which I don't think you would wish to knowingly repeat.
And in your haste to say that I am wrong, you post a reader's review from Amazon as a source? So...you haven't actually read Crick's Life Itself? But you know what it says....right.
Shall we have another look at your original post, and your misquote of Darwin concerning the evolution of the eye? Or would you like another opportunity to make a correction, and avoid still further embarrassment.
Which trials, be specific? Even Senator Iselin could give a specific number.
You know, I've re-read your posts here, and I am still worried that you still really don't get what is important about your goof in post #65. So let's just briefly look at that one again, because I would really like you to see what you have unwittingly done.
In post #65, you stated:
Finally, Francis Crick, discover of DNA and a Nobel Prize winner said "the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule so as to make it absurd." Like many atheists he believes that extraterrestials sent living cells to earth.
I pointed out, in reply to your post, that the quote allegedly from Francis Crick is in fact from Fred Hoyle. It's very easy to see how you slipped up on the old copy & paste, because the misquote that is from Crick appears on lots and lots of Creationist websites (and often, next to Hoyle). That quote, which you intended, is:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle" and is indeed from his book Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature 1981, p. 88
OK, this is where the fun really starts. Copy part of this quote from Crick, say "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now" and Google it. You will hit quite a few pages, without exception Creationist websites, with this self-same quote from Nobel-prize winner Francis Crick appearing to proclaim his own Creationist creed. Pretty convincing, yes?
Well, read the book itself! Here is the full sentence, and the sentence immediately following:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
I have added the bolding to the end of the sentence which all of those Creationist websites omit.
Why do you suppose they abridge that sentence, and omit the one immediately following? Do you suppose they are trying to save bandwidth? Or could it just be that they are deliberately doctoring the quote, as shamelessly as Mr. Rather's forgeries, in order to misrepresent? In order, in fact, to lie?
You stated in your post #329, that you found
the simple biblical explanation of human existence does much greater justice to freedom, moral responsibility, equality. the dignity of man, conscience, truth and other values than any explanation based upon the survival of the fittest
I read the Bible, too. It is the basis of my own faith. I read it often and find therein wisdom, beauty, guidance, and comfort. And a grave injunction against bearing false witness.
And it as bearers of false witness that I charge the various creationist websites from which you and others have scooped up so much misleading nonsense to dump on this thread.