Skip to comments.
New Chemical Scenario For How Life Emerged On Earth
UniSci ^
| 20 June 2002
Posted on 06/20/2002 11:33:32 AM PDT by sourcery
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
1
posted on
06/20/2002 11:33:32 AM PDT
by
sourcery
To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; RightWhale
FYI
2
posted on
06/20/2002 12:28:01 PM PDT
by
sourcery
To: sourcery
Its amazing how wonderfully complex life is and yet so undirected -it spontaneously arrose and began organizing...randomness giving rise to the ultimate in complexity...and all of this without any outside creative directing force. The finished creation having invented itself..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... Lord you and I know its all your handiwork and even the chemical reactions of the brains that take this tripe for truth.. Thanks Lord think I will go out and enjoy what it is you and you alone have made for us...
3
posted on
06/20/2002 12:28:07 PM PDT
by
joesnuffy
To: sourcery
Very interesting.
4
posted on
06/20/2002 12:41:27 PM PDT
by
balrog666
To: sourcery
You got your carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and a few other conditions and hit it with an energy source --could be almost anything, a lightning storm-- and let the stuff sit around and all kinds of things, most of them gooey and unattractive, start growing. That part is not so hard to imagine. It's the intelligence thing that is baffling, the self-awareness, the gooey masses growing eyes and banging away at computer keyboards reporting what they see; that's the real mystery.
To: joesnuffy
A heck of a lot can happen given 4 billion years, without an outside directing force. That's why the young earth folks used to be so fanatical (but, apparently, have finally given up); if the earth is 10,000 years old you don't have time for everything to happen.
But people simply can't wrap their mind around what a billion years means.
6
posted on
06/20/2002 12:43:32 PM PDT
by
John H K
To: joesnuffy
Statistically, the odds that the first cell self-generated are 1 in 10x57,000. Pretty tall odds for this young-earth creationist to accept. {Duck...incoming}
To: sourcery
Always suspected I am a result of bacteria on primitive beaches rather than descended from apes.
8
posted on
06/20/2002 12:52:07 PM PDT
by
LarryLied
To: LiteKeeper
Statistically, the odds that the first cell self-generated are 1 in 10x57,000. Gee, maybe that's why nobody said "cell". Of course, a posteri, it doesn't matter what the odds were!
9
posted on
06/20/2002 12:56:19 PM PDT
by
balrog666
To: sourcery
Great article. Thanks for posting.
10
posted on
06/20/2002 1:37:40 PM PDT
by
gcruse
To: sourcery; *crevo_list
Another gap slams shut.
11
posted on
06/20/2002 1:44:21 PM PDT
by
Junior
To: sourcery
Thanks for the ping. I donno how the creationism crowd is gonna take this news. First, lighting is found to have a natural cause. Then the sunrise. Then disease. Now this. It keeps getting harder and harder for the Genesis boys to hang in there. But they'll manage somehow.
To: PatrickHenry
It keeps getting harder and harder for the Genesis boys to hang in there. But they'll manage somehow. You need to remember the definition of "invincible ignorance".
I noticed OOBFOO-boy started doing it to himself! I wonder what that's a harbinger for?
To: balrog666
I noticed OOBFOO-boy started doing it to himself! I wonder what that's a harbinger for? It's hard to maintain a consistent position on anything when you refuse to adhere to the only possible standard of truth -- reality itself. Once you abandon that narrow road you're in the swamp, with only an occasional swami to guide you. And who knows where the swami's info comes from?
To: Junior
Another gap slams shut.Yeah right!!!!
credulity
\Cre*du"li*ty\ (kr?-d?"l?-t?), n. [L. credulitas, fr. credulus: cf. F. cr['e]dulit['e]. See Credulous.] Readiness of belief; a disposition to believe on slight evidence.
That implict credulity is the mark of a feeble mind will not be disputed. --Sir W. Hamilton.
15
posted on
06/21/2002 8:35:26 AM PDT
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
You'll never accept any evidence that goes against your worldview, will you?
16
posted on
06/21/2002 8:50:09 AM PDT
by
Junior
To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry; Gumlegs; jennyp; JediGirl
This thread hasn't gotten much attention from the creos; I wonder if that is on purpose?
17
posted on
06/21/2002 8:58:41 AM PDT
by
Junior
To: Junior
I just understand chemistry. Describe in your own terms what has been proven here.
18
posted on
06/21/2002 9:00:07 AM PDT
by
AndrewC
To: AndrewC
Describe in your own terms what has been proven here. "Proven"? Nothing, except that there is a plausible mechanism for abiogenesis. Whether or not this is actually what happened remains an open question at this point, but the discovery of a potential mechanism is significant in and of itself.
To: AndrewC
That the macro-molecular building blocks of life could have formed naturally and that abiogenesis may not be as impossible as creationists would have folks think. So, you're a chemist, huh?
20
posted on
06/21/2002 9:14:18 AM PDT
by
Junior
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson