C.H. Spurgeon

Sinners, let me address you with words of life; Jesus wants nothing from you, nothing whatsoever, nothing done, nothing felt; he gives both work and feeling. Ragged, penniless, just as you are, lost, forsaken, desolate, with no good feelings, and no good hopes, still Jesus comes to you, and in these words of pity he addresses you, "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."

Comment Policy: No profanity or blasphemy will be posted. You do not have to agree, but if you would like your comment posted, you will have to adhere to the policy.


Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Storks Don’t Bring Babies and Comets Don’t Bring Life

Just incase anyone was wondering if life came to Earth by comets, “For the first time, there are solid data to refute a popular theory that life came to the Earth aboard a comet, Rutgers researchers said Monday.”

I, for one, had/have no more belief that life came to Earth from comets than I do babies are brought by storks, but if one did/has, new research says you might have to drop that idea.

“Deteriorated DNA from microbes, frozen for millions of years in the Antarctic ice, shows that organisms could not have survived the bombardment of cosmic radiation during deep space travel from outside the solar system, said Paul Falkowski, a Rutgers biologist and oceanographer.”

“"It's almost an impossibility for comets to seed other planets with life after they've been in space for millions of years," Falkowski said.”

*Notice the word “almost” is used. Is this due to the idea of “no absolutes” or to leave an out incase they one day find life hitching a ride on the back of a comet?

“The Rutgers study refutes at least part of the "panspermia hypothesis" -- a theory from the Greeks, and popular among many scientists since the 19th century -- that microorganisms and biochemicals were carried to the planet by comets, meteors and asteroids.”

6 comments:

BEAST said...

Comets are not very likely to carry microbes from the depths of outer space, but that does not mean that they can't carry necessary materials that would have triggered the "premordial soup" event.

If you wish to ridicule this theory, consider this: A tale of a despotic God, magical trees, men being magically created from the soil, talking snakes, impossible world floods that reaches mount everest.....

Hell, I think the comet theory sounds more plausible.

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

Beast, I think your post here was supposed to go under this topic instead of the other one (Still Guilty...), so I am posting it here:

----------

I have read the link you have posted, and frankly, I think you are just reading what you want to read.

Excerpts from the article:

"However, we don't know everything there is to know about the interior of comets," he said. A large comet might have enough rock in its core "to keep DNA material rather pristine and safe," Gary said.

Radiation might be a problem for microbes, but not for very basic organic material, said Kevin Conod, an astronomer and manager of the Dreyfuss Planetarium at the Newark Museum.

"I think the theory of panspermia is not about microbes from space, but amino acids, the building blocks of life," Conod said Monday. "Radiation wouldn't necessarily affect those enough to kill pieces of protein."

In fact, the idea that life can actually survive for millions of years in a cryogenic state actually proves the possibility of life existing elsewhere......and the best part is, the idea that earth is actually 6000 years old is once again debunked.

Beast

BEAST said...

Tim:

Not trying to be insulting, but you might want to ask me or someone else to review your post on science before you post anything.

The fact is that there is an extreme polemic with what scientists write and how christians read them. You do not want to be accused of the same "crime" which Christians like yourself love to blame on atheists who interpret bibles.

Beast

Writer, Splinters of Silver.com said...

Okay, let’s review my post…

My title is, “Storks Don’t Bring Babies and Comets Don’t Bring Life”.

I assume we can agree, “Storks Don’t Bring Babies”.

As to date, there is no evidence that comets bring life or brought life to Earth, and scientists on both fronts (for and against) do not agree as to whether it is possible or not.

I simply note that if you believe (where some scientist do and some don’t) that comets can/did bring life to Earth that, “new research says you might have to drop that idea.” Readers are free to make their own opinion by reading the article.

Next I quote the article.

I make a personal statement, which I stand by, that I do not believe babies come to parents by storks or that life came to Earth by comets. I did not try to prove it or demand any other agree with me or prove otherwise.

Next I quote the article twice.

Next I notice the use of the word “almost” and ask why.

Next I quote the article.

Where exactly in my post do I simply ridicule the theory? I simply state I don’t believe life on Earth can/did come from comets. This is the same as your opinion that, “Comets are not very likely to carry microbes from the depths of outer space, but that does not mean that they can't carry necessary materials that would have triggered the "premordial soup" event.” These are both just our opinions which scientist in the field seem to share on both sides also.

BEAST said...

TIm:

By comparing stock babies with a scientific preposition, you are using the wrong supposition to juxtapose your views.

Babies obviously are not carried by stocks, while comets hitting earth is a reality. And given that Earth is itself a product of space, it is plausible to assume that life, as we know it, may have been inherited from space.

The question is, no one has ever invented a machine capable of observing asteroids, which do fly at quite blinding speeds.

Fact is, we already found life frozen in Earth's huge ice reserves, which have been capable of staying dormant for millions of years.

Like I said, this is an interesting hypothesis, and I think it throws up more possibilities more you think. For you to insinuate that this is no more than mere tales of baby-carrying is sheer ludicrousness.

If you wanted to criticize, at least criticize base on the full context of the article. When I read your article and the link, I find great disparity, so much so that I almost puked on my laptop.

Please, Tim, for your sake, and my sanity's sake, still to biblical posts. Frankly, you can't comment on science posts. Stick to things you know best.

Beast

BEAST said...

"These are both just our opinions which scientist in the field seem to share on both sides also."

Reading the article via its full context, I don't think scientists share both sides of the argument.

Probably they have different ideas how it happened, but they are certainly not discounting the idea and comparing it to baby carrying stocks, which you so arrogantly assume.

Stick to your day job and your bible posts, Tim. Science is already having a hard time being taught in schools as it is without religious pastors like you messing things up in Sunday schools.

Beast

John Bunyan

To be saved is to be preserved in the faith to the end. 'He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.' (Mt. 24:13) Not that perseverance is an accident in Christianity, or a thing performed by human industry; they that are saved 'are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.' (1 Pet. 1: 3-6) But perseverance is absolutely necessary to the complete saving of the soul…. He that goeth to sea with a purpose to arrive at Spain, cannot arrive there if he be drowned by the way; wherefore perseverance is absolutely necessary to the saving of the soul.