Thanks Ernest.
Posted on 01/24/2015 6:09:58 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Theyre taking satans track...wanting to usurp Gods position
“New findings suggest that comets might, indeed, have helped deliver key ingredients of life to Earth and perhaps elsewhere”
Uh, ingredients like, say, fully functioning organisms, and “comets” possibly meaning space-transiting transportation machines operated by sentient beings?
Which is the *active* ingredient? ;-P
The Indians kicked the snot out of Columbus for telling that one.
Now, on another note -- evolutionists can't find any evidence on earth for the origins of life on earth in three downs, so, on fourth, they punt to the universe, and then say, "Pay me!"
If science is proposing the earth could of been seeded externally with the components of life .
it also must concede that life itself could have been seeded on earth
which would have been in conflict with theory of evolution that that all life evolved on earth.
If something is seeded on earth from the outside from space..
then it did, for all intent “magically appear” one day on earth and in the fossil record....
something we repeatedly told by people claiming they are speaking scientific truth it's been prove didn't happen...
So you have a creationist saying life appeared one day on earth, and it was created
And you have evolutionist saying science tells them that the sudden appearance of life on earth is prove nonsense and that it evolved
And now have science saying it's possible life appeared one day on earth because it was seeded from outside from space
Thanks! Fascinating stuff. I’m amazed at how much that comet looks like granite up close. Some of those pics look like shots you might take in the Rocky Mountains.
Thanks Ernest.
Thanks Ernest. Didn't take long for the ex cathedra crowd to arrive.
|
There was a cosmic impact: Earth ran into God. :>)
> “God loaded up the comets...” Just as God used water as a tool to destroy in Noah’s time, and used fire to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and used a rib go create Woman, who is to say God doesn’t use other tools he created and at hand for his own purposes and plans?
I think his intellect is so far removed from ours that we can’t comprehend it. The same applies to athiests and other naysayers who can’t comprehend or acknowledge an intelliect so vastly superior to theirs that they will not admit its existence because it would make them look as dumb as slugs by comparison to humans.
Ingredients for Life....sounds like some sort of coffee table book to me..
I don’t understand why people assume that scientific observations imply “there is no God”.
We perceive the Universe from a very limited perspective and we still haven’t discovered close to everything within our limitations.
IMO, humanity will eventually SEE everything as randomly created from OUR perspective. We will never find “evidence” of God because it isn’t possible from the perspective we have.
That does not mean God does not exist but we will not have proof either way. Some people will think the a Universe is an accident and some will think a being with rationality placed every atom. We won’t know scientifically which is correct so it will purely come down to faith (faith in random chance vs faith in rational creation).
IMO, the answer goes far beyond anything we can perceive through our current view of reality. Major breakthroughs in understanding consciousness have to occur before we even begin to see the true picture.
It's because we don't yet know. If we knew how to create life, we'd be doing it in laboratories. For some, it's much easier to say "God did it" and put the matter to rest. Others would like to try to figure it out, --something many in the first group find offensive.
Except that any explanation other than “God did it” violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Robert M Hazen, “gen·e·sis: The Scientific Quest For Life’s Origin”
Despite decades of searching they still can’t do it.
It's just hype, since "components of life" simply means organic (carbon-based) chemicals, such as have been observed in interstellar dust clouds.
Such chemistry is not even as close to being "alive" as, for example, crude oil.
tophat9000: "it also must concede that life itself could have been seeded on earth"
Sure, "could have", but so far we have no evidence of that.
Indeed, such evidence as we do have suggests otherwise.
tophat9000: "which would have been in conflict with theory of evolution that that all life evolved on earth."
DNA evidence, among others, suggests that all life began with common living ancestors.
Evolution theory itself does not confirm how life first began.
Various hypotheses related to abiogenesis suggest life's roots are in self-replicating organic chemistry.
But the panspermia hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out.
tophat9000: "If something is seeded on earth from the outside from space..
then it did, for all intent “magically appear” one day on earth and in the fossil record....
something we repeatedly told by people claiming they are speaking scientific truth it's been prove didn't happen..."
The geological record shows evidence of very simple "life", or complex organic chemistry, within a few hundred million years of Earth's formation, some 4+ billion years ago.
The record suggests such "life" becoming steadily more complex over the next 3+ billion years, until the Cambrian Explosion circa 500 million years ago.
Of course, that doesn't prove life originated on Earth, but so far at least there's no evidence it originated somewhere else.
tophat9000: "And you have evolutionist saying science tells them that the sudden appearance of life on earth is prove nonsense and that it evolved
And now have science saying it's possible life appeared one day on earth because it was seeded from outside from space"
No, no scientist has ever found evidence of "life" seeded from outer space.
What they've found are relatively simple organic (carbon based) chemicals in outer space, chemicals which could easily have landed on earth during its formation, or any time since.
They speculate such chemicals might have helped self-replication get a start here, or maybe not.
they have constructed thier “model” and are trying their best to find a scrap of evidence to support it..
anything to avoid facing the “concept” of a CREATOR will do
By revealed truth and definition, our Creator must be supernatural, while by definition natural-science only deals with natural explanations for natural processes.
So, if a scientist were to say, for example, "God did it", then he would not be speaking science, but rather his own personal religious beliefs.
Both panspermia and abiogenesis are valid scientific hypotheses, though neither is strongly confirmed, both are equally likely, or unlikely, to be part of God's great plan for His Universe.
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.
