Posted on 01/22/2015 6:23:46 AM PST by Heartlander
I have absolutely no doubt that there are life-supporting planets among the billions of billions of billions of stars in the universe, but the closest one is so many millions of light years away that it is irrelevant.
Straw-man argument. Some of those “rules” are simply wrong.
The most “simple” single-celled organism is far too stupendously complex to have “evolved” via random processes. Yet they have unshakable faith in such abiogenesis, “spontaneous generation,” life from lifeless chemicals, something Pasteur disproved a long time ago.
They need to throw lifeless chemicals together and create a “simple” single-celled organism, complete with DNA, etc., and get back with us. Until then, until they perform this laughable impossibility, theirs are just as much faith-based beliefs as Christian’s beliefs are.
Please elaborate. Evolution is supposedly random therefore it is incumbent that science prove evolution primarily through observations rather than laboratory experiments which introduce knowledge rather than mimic nature. Of course, in today’s bizzarro world ymmv.
Astrobiology: still the only science with zero data.
Nonsense:
Anyone who insists that “simple” life was what we “evolved” from should be required to build one themselves.
Surely if it can happen randomly, some “scientist” could easily create it on purpose.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Barry needs some specs.
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.