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.