For awhile, when I’d say that atheists believed that inanimate and inorganic gases could evolve, I got responses about how stupid I was to believe such a thing. Meaning of course that I was wrong for thinking that any atheist would be so stupid as to believe such a thing. Well now it’s out there for all to see. If you look at the comments to my last two posts, you’ll see that the bravest of the bunch are willing to put it in print with their monikers attached.
Dead gases evolving into life is “a well known process.”
Apparently there is even a fairly well developed mythology to go with it:
“The credibility of this scenario is supported by the authority of Hesiod (Theogony c. 700 B.C.) Who tells us that Aphrodite (her name means foam-born) arose from the sea foam on the island of Cythera. From there she was wafted on Homer’s “wine dark sea” to Cyprus. The goddess, being immortal, was able to escape the effect of the intense ultraviolet light on the Earth at the time. Which is good since that would have exposed mortal organisms to a lethal dose in less than 0.3 seconds. Aphrodite is still widely worshipped today, especially near colleges, universities and atheist meet-ups.”
For the rest of us, as far as the emergence of mortal beings is concerned, one must be a little more sceptical about this mode of origination.
Hubert Yockey,"Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of LIfe," (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005),117
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I just word searched the comments in "Hey! I Created Life!" and "Maggots from Dead Garbage = No God". They must be the two posts you're referring to, because the ones before those have nothing to do with abiogenesis.
The word "known" does not appear anywhere in those comments, let alone “a well known process.” The commenters can't have censored themselves because we can't edit our own comments on this site, let alone delete them.
Therefore you've invented even the small proportion of the quote that's actually in quotes.
You lied for Jesus again.
Aaahhh, now I've found it. You meant "a well UNDERSTOOD process." Please don't misquote the statement on which you base your whole post, it does your credibility no good.
There are several hypothetical processes by which life possibly arose from non-life. Each of them is well understood on its own terms, or it wouldn't have been put forward. That doesn't mean any one of them is easy to replicate.
Incidentally, the currently leading hypothesis has nothing to do with gases and much more to do with crystals. Do you know anything about the research that's been done SINCE the Miller-Urey experiment? I doubt it.
"There are several hypothetical processes by which life possibly arose from non-life. Each of them is well understood on its own terms, or it wouldn't have been put forward. That doesn't mean any one of them is easy to replicate."
Do you keep a straight face when you write this stuff?
Yes I do, Rod.
What do you think would happen if you addressed what was being said instead of attacking the one who is saying it?
"There are several hypothetical processes by which life possibly arose from non-life. Each of them is well understood on its own terms, or it wouldn't have been put forward. That doesn't mean any one of them is easy to replicate."
What that means is, there is not ONE theory of "dead matter evolving into life that is anything more than speculation and wishful dreaming.
Hey MAKARIOS and OTHERS,
I decided that it was finally time for me to have my own blog.
Actually, I already had created one a few days ago because I wanted to share a little sketch with someone.
One user who writes here, "His Lordship", noticed my sketch and thought I should show it to you Makarios, so why not? It's related to your misconception of what infinity or the Big Bang truly represent.
At the same time, it made me realize that I could spend some time, once in a while, to write something on that temporary blog I had already created... so I decided to put my Abiogenesis reply as my first real blog post!
Just click on my username or browse to http://hugo-temp.blogspot.com to find out.
Cheers!
Of course they are speculative, because evidence has not emerged that any particular one of them was how it actually happened. Given that all life is genetically related, abiogenesis may only ever have happened once. It's that rare. We may be stuck speculating for a long time yet.
What the methods in the different hypotheses are not, as a whole, is impossible. Some have been ruled out, but others are still feasible and more are emerging. And nobody's about to give up on the promising ones because of your incredulity.
Post a Comment