Skip to comments.Viral Life from Outer Space? Not Likely.
Posted on 06/08/2009 9:20:49 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Viral Life from Outer Space? Not Likely.
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Since a whole, functioning cell could not possibly emerge spontaneously from non-living matter, many evolutionists believe that simpler viruses were the first step towards the development of life. Researchers in Finland conducted a test on the survivability of viruses inside bacterial spores, which some scientists hypothesize may have travelled through space on meteoroids to seed life on earth. What the study discovered, however, is that life springing from space-borne viruses was highly unlikely.
The question of lifes beginnings has been vexing to Darwins supporters. After a lifetime of speculating on naturalistic scenarios for the origin of life on earth, famous Russian evolutionist A. I. Oparin...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Thanks for the ping!
>>The question of lifes beginnings has been vexing to Darwins supporters. <<
No, people who understand TToE also know that abiogenesis is irrelevant to the Theory.
Your WWN sister rag’s, Bat Boy story can’t even get a simple fact right.
Obviously they are pretty hardy critters.
Let's say Earth breaks up some day ~ the larger parts can fly off in all directions and after vast periods of time arrive somewhere else ~ those critters will still be alive and ready to do their thing.
The less fit critters on the surface will probably be destroyed by such an event.
Panspermia suggests that that live arrived at Earth in much the same manner, and may be still arriving in meteors and comets.
ICR and the other creation rationalization sites represent the worst of bad science. I used to pity the people who rely on them for information—now, I am convinced that those people are either ignorant or dishonest.
Yes an interesting juxtaposition isn’t it.
Delivery of life can not be done for evolution via an interplanetary delivery vehicle(ie: comet, meteorite etc...) which may or may not be true(although chemicals have been found to suggest at least the chemical equation be true).
However for ID to be held true an even tougher theory must be proven, that of a Creator. My faith alone is not enough to scientifically prove his existence.
Anyways I will exit this thread because the last time I got into a deep argument on this subject I pissed off both sides.
My point is there is no relationship to abiogenesis (no matter how you think it happened or its relationship to subsequent events — a matter for another thread) and TToE than there is between abiogenesis and Astronomy.
This attempted linkage by people who refuse to understand science is a standard canard by Weekly World News and its sister publications like this one and AIG.
(waiting for the usual gang to stop by and start calling me names since that is all they have... please don’t let me down guys, since I can use a laugh while I relax here on a beach in sunny Mexico)
I spoke too soon — I leave it to you to argue pansermia, since it is not really supported by the scientific community and is certainly not an area of expertise (even in passing) for me.
I just meant MY point is the source is blighted thus so is the analysis.
“However for ID to be held true an even tougher theory must be proven, that of a Creator. My faith alone is not enough to scientifically prove his existence.”
Couple of points there. 1 - Intelligent design can be proved outside of any specific religion. 2 - Since evolution requires the same leaps of faith as do religions, it must not be taught with tax money, because of the 1st amendment. It serves absolutely no scientific purpose other that socio-religious worldview.
Highly unlikely. And moreover, such an idea is still confronted with the same problem of life emerging from non-life on Earth. And finally, as with all other aspects of nature, the extremophiles are best explained by biblical creation:
Only the Intelligent Design/Panspermia folks point to something other than "magic".
Unlike many (hint, hint), I don't speak on things I don't know well.
And as I said, I certainly don't address an article that can't even begin its thesis statement without lying.
Are you stupid? I said I will not argue this, so why reply?
There IS ZERO proof of ID. A watch in the woods or breeding of dogs is not proof. Evolution does require some leaps of faith, this is true. However to say it has no scientific purpose shows your naivete.
Again, they were only noted recently.
Not having been mentioned in the Bible I believe the traditional religious response has been to write them off to a "separate creation".
Now, regarding "separate creation" what you want to look for are the Church Father's arguments regarding "state of grace". They are quite relevant to the issue at hand. BTW, you have to remember that for about 90% of its history the Catholic Church was pretty much subject to the Creationist Theory, so "separate creation" was a solution regularly proposed to deal with anomalies in that particular theory. Appeals to "modern Church positions" will not help us illuminate this particular debate. My understanding is the "separate creation" and "state of grace" standards for outerspace critters haven't been updated, just abandoned for the time being.
Here is the problem. If ID is without magic, then that means these beings came from somewhere. Now these beings may have had their own designer, and their designers may have had their own and so forth. Eventually their is a beginning. This beginning is where the leap of faith occurs for all believers of all of them, evo, creo, ID. A puddle of chemicals, the hand of god or just magically appearing. None can be proven yet fully. However one has come closest(IMO to both ID and Evolution).
==Unlike many (hint, hint), I don’t speak on things I don’t know well.
At some time in a past so ancient that even God has lost track of it somewhere in the Multiverse (My Father has many mansions) life started or continued.
When God thought it useful He went to the nursery and brought plants, animals and people to the Garden He planted in Eden.
Most biologists believe that life originated in replicating molecules resulting from organic molecules already existing on earth and in space.
Viruses are much too complicated. Prions probably are too.
muawiyah - You can talk about this as science all you want but life from outerspace has not been observed. Those little critters still need certain conditions to support life - conditions that have not been proven for outerspace - the hot and cold temperature extremes alone must both be applied due to the extreme cold of outerspace w/ no atmosphere plus the extreme heating they would all be subject too upon re-entry into any planet suitable to support life.
Also I’ve heard of no traditional religious response calling them a ‘separate creation’ - my Bible tells me that God created all creatures - great and small, visible and not visible to the naked eye.
That's all they need.
They survive an environment on Earth that's no more rigorous than in the rocks of Venus or Mars, or at the rocky core of Jupiter.
It's just a matter of time ~ years, maybe only months, and we'll have evidence that these same critters live elsewhere in this solar system. It'll take a bit longer to demonstrate that for our end of the Galaxy.
It's all there. And as a "separate creation".
If I substitute "Martian" for "angel" the arguments are the same.
You have still failed to backup your assertations - please simply state what extremes of heat and cold they can endure. I seriously doubt they can survive the extremes temperature fluctuations required for space travel.
Dr. Werhner von Braun was given a public lecture about the earth, and outter space, and so on. Afterwords, a little old lady comes up and tells him that he didn't fool her. She knows the earth don't go around the sun, but it rests on the back of a giant turtle.
"Really?" teased the amused von Braun. "and what does the turtle stand on?"
"Oh? And what does he stand on?"
The little old lady waved a grandmotherly finger at him. "Ah,ah,ah,Doctor,you can't trick me. Everybody knows it's turtles all the way to the bottom!"
I regard the Catholic church and the Bible as 2 separate and distinct sources seeing as how the Catholic church leaders often change their ‘dogma’ over the centuries.
==Also Ive heard of no traditional religious response calling them a separate creation - my Bible tells me that God created all creatures - great and small, visible and not visible to the naked eye.
However, they still provide the greater part of thoughts concerning the concept of "separate creation" and "beings not of this Earth".
My thermodynamics lecturer told that one once. It was elephants though, but I thought Turtles was a bit more modern. The lecture was on entropy.
I think it's beyond argument that with enough "insulation" it should be possible for other forms of life to do so, especially mindless, soulless, Godless, pitiful, helpless little ol' archaebacter that can live on rocks!
Those little critters still need certain conditions to support life - conditions that have not been proven for outer space...Our knowledge of those conditions, of course, being about as close to zero as one can get and still be a number.
And Luciver was “created” where?
The belief in angles, demons, etc. predicated the RCC time out of mind. What the RCC did was incorporate, and thus discipline and control, these ageless beliefs/fears.
They did not reject out of hand the idea that God in His wisdom would and could create others somehow somewhere.
Pretty advanced thinking ~ and in the Middle Ages many of the residents of monasteries had plenty of time to think about the subject.
That is faith, not science at any level.
I am not agnostic, nor will I let my faith be defined by someone like you. My belief in certain aspects of both ID and Evolution does not make me died in the wool of either. You may not like it but it is better to have an open and independent mind than to search for answers in one dark corner.
The implications are truly profound, with the second story actually challenging most of the doctrines the Creos try to pull out of the first creation event.
God Himself planted a garden ~ think about that ~ the plants already existed ~ He planted them.
So, logical question, where were the plants before they got planted?
The Evos would like to link with warm pools filled with chemicals that simply self-assemble into a highly sophisticated single celled critter that can go through paroxysms of joy and gyration for the eons and poop up advanced forms.
I think it's all far more complicated than that, and that it's only a matter of time until we locate the tiny nano-particle sized super computers whose structures occur within the strands of our DNA. Supplemental redesigns may have occurred over time ~ with "time" being far longer than a mere 13 billion years.
In fact, Thomas Huxley's famous essay on life's origins show just how important a part of evolutionary theory the question is.
Said Huxley (in part:
“And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions, which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter. I should expect to see it appear under forms of great simplicity, endowed, like existing fungi, with the power of determining the formation of new protoplasm from such matters as ammonium carbonates, oxalates and tartrates, alkaline and earthy phosphates, and water, without the aid of light. That is the expectation to which analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith.”
(Biogenesis and Abiogenesis 1870 Essay)
Huxley was well thought of by Darwin for his zeal in propagating the “Gospel” of evolution so when Huxley speaks of the ‘evolution of life from non-living matter’ he speaks
like a high priest in The Temple of Darwinism.
Now as then, life from inert matter is an “act of philosophical faith”.
“Also Ive heard of no traditional religious response calling them a separate creation - my Bible tells me that God created all creatures - great and small, visible and not visible to the naked eye.”
I respect your faith, as I, too, am a Chrtistian. However, using your faith to either make or dispute scientific findings is pointless. Faith and science coexist and are separate.
Oh, sorry I misinterpreted your post. I agree. If there is to be faith and “fundamentalism” in the words in the bible then you have to come to grips in what are seemingly contradictory points.
But I disagree in your description of what evo’s believe. They believe life began accidentally after billions of years of toxic soups mixing with a small barely living life form that just had likely a few lines of RNA. From that simple “life form” more and more advanced creatures came. The problem I have with that isn’t that a very simplistic life form could be accidentally created it’s the replication mechanism that befuddles me. In order to evolve you must be able to replicate.
Well then evolution would not be nearly as debatable if all science would separate their hopefuls ideas from what can actually be proven scientifically. I concur it would be nice to keep them separate, however I was responding to another poster who thought it necessary to mix the two w/ hopes and dreams regarding achaeobacteria.
Personally the best site I’ve encountered for separating the 2 is creationscience.com
How’s the weather down there? I was thinking about a vacation myself - but I can assure you that I won’t be on the internet during. :)
I would direct your attention to spore forming bacilli that can endure hundreds of years at absolute zero (and temperatures of up to 212 degrees) in spore form and be restored to viability once conditions become suitable.
Why does the fact that he wrote an article on abiogenesis show that it’s an important part of evolutionary theory?
Huxley wrote articles on a wide range of subjects, most of which had nothing or little to do with evolution.
In fact, in this article he no where even discusses evolution (he used the term “evolution”, but not in the sense of “the theory of evolution” or Darwinism).
In fact, interestingly, in this, his inaugural address as president of the BAAS, this “Darwin’s Bulldog” never mentions Darwin - but he does repeatedly mention Pasteur and sing his praises (as he does in many other speeches and publications - he could have been called “Pasteur’s Bulldog”).
1. TIME. Not enough of it. Calculate the subliminal speeds those rocks travel, and you'll find they're still far too slow to make it around the galaxy. Additionally, they've had to GET VERY LUCKY and "find" a planet to capture it/crash into. Infintessimally infintessimal odds of that, and, of course, not nearly enough time.
2. Logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. Where did the first life come from? It wasn't seeded. Because of (1) and (2), it's far more logical to conclude that life arose here on Earth, by some means, Divine or...?
Science doesn’t prove—it draws logical, rational conclusions from available evidence. Creation rationalization begins with a conclusion and puts forth ridiculous explanations derived from scripture and other anecdotes to support the conclusion. It is directed to buttress the faith of otherwise weak Christian.
creationscience.com is as embarrassing to real Christians as the rest.
Evolution and Christianity coexist beautifully, except for the weak in faith.
“I finished your book yesterday. . . Since I read Von Baer’s Essays nine years ago no work on Natural History Science I have met with has made so great an impression on me & I do most heartily thank you for the great store of new views you have given me. . .
As for your doctrines I am prepared to go to the Stake if requisite. . .
I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse & misrepresentation which unless I greatly mistake is in store for you. . . And as to the curs which will bark and yelp — you must recollect that some of your friends at any rate are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have often & justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead —
I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness
Letter of T. H. Huxley to Charles Darwin, November 23, 1859, regarding the Origin of Species”( www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html)
Huxley wrote about a lot things but he is remembered amongst Darwinists for just a few, such as his sea voyage like the one Darwin took and Huxley's well known debate with the Bishop of Oxford on the subject of evolution and his defense of evolution.
“Thomas H. Huxley's Biogenesis and Abiogenesis address is the first clear statement of the basic outlines of modern Darwinian science on the question of the origin of life. The terms “biogenesis” (for life only from pre-existing life) and “abiogenesis” (for life from nonliving materials, what had previously been called spontaneous generation) as used by Huxley in this speech have become the standard terms for discussing the subject of how life originates. The speech offered powerful support for Pasteur's claim to have experimentally disproved spontaneous generation. The speech was also Huxley's attempt to define an orthodox Darwinian position on the question, and attempt to define as “non-Darwinian” all those Darwin supporters who believed that spontaneous generation up to the present day was an essential requirement of evolutionary science. Henry Charlton Bastian was the most prominent leader of that faction of Darwinians, though Huxley was so successful in defining them out of the story that very few people today even realize that there WERE Darwinians who were serious, talented evolutionary scientists, yet also thought abiogenesis was necessary in evolution up to the present day.”
Biogenesis and Abiogenesis
James Strick. 1999.Darwinism and the Origin of Life: the Role of H.C. Bastian in the British Spontaneous Generation Debates, 1868-1873. Journal of the History of Biology, 32:1-42
www.asm.org/membership/index.asp?bid=16731 But I won't do all your research for you.
As far as needing to go all the way around the Galaxy, how about within 30 light years of Earth? Plenty of stuff there eh!
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.