RE: Was at least the first life form created?
October 9, 2009 at 8:10 pm
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2009 at 8:16 pm by Minimalist.)
Well, rjh, in spite of your assertions that abiogenesis is impossible I hope you'll forgive scientists if they ignore you and continue research towards the goal.
Just think of all the fun you will have denying reality when it happens?
Meanwhile, this article from Scientific American (which I'm sure you avoid as it does not commence "In the beginnning....")
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ist&page=3
From #7:
The difference between science and religion (which is, after all, what you are here to promote) is that science will continue to ask questions while religion thinks it already has all the answers.
Just think of all the fun you will have denying reality when it happens?
Meanwhile, this article from Scientific American (which I'm sure you avoid as it does not commence "In the beginnning....")
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ist&page=3
From #7:
Quote:The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
The difference between science and religion (which is, after all, what you are here to promote) is that science will continue to ask questions while religion thinks it already has all the answers.
