Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: VadeRetro
Check out a book called Rare Earth.

This and a few other authors, geologists and biochemists, have said that it's more than a little "coincidental" that life seemed to develop the second the Earth had cooled sufficiently to allow it to exist.

I don't believe in coincidences.

We've always been told that it would take billions of years for life to evolve...Okay, but why did it arise so quickly, the minute Earth was cool enough? Suspicious!!

I'm old enough to recall that we were told we'd never know what killed the dynosaurs. We'd never know what an atom looked like. We pretty much know both, now.

I've learned to be suspicious--but not hostile towards--our esteemed scientists. They don't have all the answers, but they're trying, which is good.

What I've found, however, is that they don't always present all the evidence on the table for public discussion when they should.

Oh, and creationists would not be able to say that was proof that life was designed.

If science can't explain abiogenesis--hey, man, it's THEIR theory, not ours (Christians)--shouldn't we hold them accountable? (Some lady earlier suggested they be spanked. That's ridiculous. Accountability is for them to acknowledge in public discussion that, NO, there has been no progress, none, in this area to date.)

Sauron

303 posted on 12/05/2005 2:31:31 PM PST by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies ]


To: sauron
This and a few other authors, geologists and biochemists, have said that it's more than a little "coincidental" that life seemed to develop the second the Earth had cooled sufficiently to allow it to exist.

The Earth evidently cooled rather faster than we have until recently thought. Evidence for this has been found in some very old zircons and sophisticated modeling. Say it was about 100,000 years instead of half a billion. That leaves an extra 400,000 years we didn't know we had.

I don't believe in coincidences.

No. You believe in magical invisible people poofing everything out of nothing.

Accountability is for them to acknowledge in public discussion that, NO, there has been no progress, none, in this area to date.

I don't really keep up to date on abiogenesis research, but I'd be stunned if you're ahead of me on it. Just for one thing, you've already posted that the Miller-Urey experiment was a failure because it didn't produce a bacterium, a trilobite, or whatever. That's something beyond willful ignorance; call it "willful self-misinformation."

308 posted on 12/05/2005 2:41:12 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]

To: sauron
Oh, and creationists would not be able to say that was proof that life was designed.

You have not been paying attention on these threads. Any designed lab experiment is proof of ID and nothing but. What's even cooler: anything NOT replicable in a lab via designed experiment isn't science at all. Thus, ID is the ONLY science! Tah-dah!! (Can you spell "CATCH-22," kiddies?)

310 posted on 12/05/2005 2:45:13 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]

To: sauron
This and a few other authors, geologists and biochemists, have said that it's more than a little "coincidental" that life seemed to develop the second the Earth had cooled sufficiently to allow it to exist.

This is better evidence for panspermia, than it is for ID. Which is, by the way, the opinion of the authors of "Rare Earth".

312 posted on 12/05/2005 2:46:36 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]

To: sauron
What I've found, however, is that they don't always present all the evidence on the table for public discussion when they should.

Oh come now. There is no organized cabal of scientists trying to cover up and manipulate certain embarassing scientific facts. You'd have to look to politicians for that kind of behavior. It is science's job to figure out things, not to figure out how to dole those things out to the public in a timely manner.

318 posted on 12/05/2005 2:55:06 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]

To: sauron
What I've found, however, is that they don't always present all the evidence on the table for public discussion when they should.

Try any major university library--that's where its all hidden. The shelves are brimming with evidence, aisle after aisle and floor after floor.

But just try putting that out volume of information out the public and see how far you get. "The public" has trouble with anything beyond entry level science, and many are just not interested. That's fine, not everyone likes the same things, and to become really good in even a narrow field may take many years of study and research.

The fault may lie more with reporters and populizers of science, many of whom are scientifically illiterate themselves.

324 posted on 12/05/2005 3:05:45 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]

To: sauron
If science can't explain abiogenesis--hey, man, it's THEIR theory, not ours (Christians)-

Right. The Christian way of explanation is just "Genesis" without that "abio" part. But come to think of it, man created from mud (or dust depending on which myth you support) sure sounds like life from non-life to me. BUt what do I know?
331 posted on 12/05/2005 3:11:45 PM PST by whattajoke (I'm back... kinda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson