50 years of primordial soup in a jar
"The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life were formed when the earth had an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and water was suggested by Oparin and has been given emphasis by Urey and Bernal. In order to test this hypothesis..."
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article461.html
http://science.slashdot.org/science/....shtml?tid=134
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article461.html
http://science.slashdot.org/science/....shtml?tid=134
Comments
Originally posted by xenu
"The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life were formed when the earth had an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and water was suggested by Oparin and has been given emphasis by Urey and Bernal. In order to test this hypothesis..."
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article461.html
http://science.slashdot.org/science/....shtml?tid=134
So what is your position on this ?
Originally posted by aquafire
So what is your position on this ?
Not that I meant for this to become a "creationist bashing" thread. I was just passing along some information I thought was interesting.
However ...
My position is well known - I believe it's another nail in the "creationist science" coffin.
There are so many nails now, I doubt there is any wood left.
By this I mean it shows just how empty another one of their arguments against evolution is - getting 'life from rocks', which actually has nothing to do with evolution. But that's another story.
Before the usual trolls make an appearance - yes there were problems with the experiment. No the products didn't last long. No these results weren't hidden from students or their teachers.
It was an amazing experiment, something creationists ask for, but never do themselves.
The ./ comments are interesting.
Originally posted by xenu
Before the usual trolls make an appearance - yes there were problems with the experiment. No the products didn't last long. No these results weren't hidden from students or their teachers.
How is this a step forward?
Originally posted by xenu
It was an amazing experiment, something creationists ask for, but never do themselves.
.....never?
That is simply not true.
Originally posted by xenu
Not that I meant for this to become a "creationist bashing" thread. I was just passing along some information I thought was interesting.
However ...
Out of line! No primordial soup for you!
Originally posted by ena
How is this a step forward?
It's called science - as opposed to superstition.
Therefore it is a step forward.
.....never?
That is simply not true.
Oops, did I fall into the creationist trap and generalise? Oh dear.
Originally posted by shetline
Out of line! No primordial soup for you!
Damn, I was looking forward to having a nice hot cup of amino acids this evening.
Originally posted by Chinney
I thought that we agreed we were done with this topic. Where is Groverat's silver hammer-lock when we really need it.
Go away.
Originally posted by xenu
It's called science - as opposed to superstition.
Therefore it is a step forward.
...you said that they couldn't hold the little devils together.
Scientifically speaking, you are back to square one.
Superstition comes into play when people believe in things they can't prove through repeatable, testable means.
(Unless the Scientific Method is passé.)
Originally posted by ena
...you said that they couldn't hold the little devils together.
Scientifically speaking, you are back to square one.
Superstition comes into play when people believe in things they can't prove through repeatable, testable means.
(Unless the Scientific Method is passé.)
Only if you believe a negative result contains no information.
Obviously it doesn't.
Let's hear it for the scientific method.
Ya!
Originally posted by ena
I see.
So in other words, a "creationist scientist" would only perform an experiment if they were 100% sure of getting a "positive" result?
That being the result they "expected" before the experiment was performed?
That explains a lot of things.
Originally posted by ena
Now I really see. Somehow creation scientists have something to do with the theory of evolution being more than a theory.
What the hell are you talking about? Please use the English language, and be specific.
But then, all you are doing is dishonestly perpetuating the myth that an experiment has to be 100% successful to actually contain useful information.
It must be nice living in a universe where everything is either black or white, and all answers are either yes or no. I'm sure it makes for very easy living.
Originally posted by xenu
It's called science - as opposed to superstition.
Therefore it is a step forward.
I think this is the quote you are looking for. I'm thinking of the science that is based on testable, repeatable methods of proof.
If all other comers are superstition, where does that leave untestable theories?
Originally posted by ena
I think this is the quote you are looking for. I'm thinking of the science that is based on testable, repeatable methods of proof.
That's right.
Theories like that evolution, or general relativity, or high energy astrophysics, just to name a few at random.
You know, like using DNA techniques to question our possible origins - testable and repeatable.
Or using solar eclipses to test predictions from general relativity - testable and repeatable.
Or looking for high energy particles deep underground after a supernova - testable and repeatable.
If all other comers are superstition, where does that leave untestable theories?
Untestable theories are fun to play with, if that's your thing.
As I said, I didn't want this to turn into a creationist bashing love fest - even thought that would be so easy to do.
When you consider that if they were incorrect about the early conditions of Earth in any regard then it is pretty much impossible.
Nick
Originally posted by Chinney
I thought that we agreed we were done with this topic. Where is Groverat's silver hammer-lock when we really need it.
How about you just ignore the thread if you don't like it you nosey fvck? You're just like those people that want to ban strip clubs because YOU don't think they are moral so therefore no one else should be allowed to exercise their own free will as consenting adults and visit one.