- Aug 14, 2019
- 9,081
- 8,287
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Divorced
New Scientist had this to say 5th August 2020.
A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began
Sure, scratch everything you've been told about about Origin of Life. The honest truth is out, finally. Life emerged fully formed. It is not much of a stretch to accept that it was no accident, but the deliberate creation by God. Of course, don't expect godless science to make that small step any time soon.
This is only an introduction to the article as I'm not paying to subscribe to New Scientist.
"WHEN Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, it was a sterile ball of rock, slammed by meteorites and carpeted with erupting volcanoes. Within a billion years, it had become inhabited by microorganisms. Today, life covers every centimetre of the planet, from the highest mountains to the deepest sea. Yet, every other planet in the solar system seems lifeless. What happened on our young planet? How did its barren rocks, sands and chemicals give rise to life?
Many ideas have been proposed to explain how life began. Most are based on the assumption that cells are too complex to have formed all at once, so life must have started with just one component that survived and somehow created the others around it. When put into practice in the lab, however, these ideas don’t produce anything particularly lifelike. It is, some researchers are starting to realise, like trying to build a car by making a chassis and hoping wheels and an engine will spontaneously appear.
The alternative – that life emerged fully formed – seems even more unlikely. Yet perhaps astoundingly, two lines of evidence are converging to suggest that this is exactly what happened. It turns out that all the key molecules of life can form from the same simple carbon-based chemistry. What’s more, they easily combine to make startlingly lifelike “protocells”. As well as explaining how life began, this “everything-first” idea of life’s origins also has implications for where it got started – and the most likely locations for extraterrestrial life, too."
When I examine OOL, there is little consensus among scientists and new theories are being introduced form time to time. Scientists generally agree that life arose spontaneously. What they cannot agree on is how. Now someone has decided that decades of research got it wrong, something that Christians have been saying for, well, decades.
The atheist contributors to the forum accuse me of providing no evidence. How on earth can I refute an argument that is a constantly moving target?
My argument against evolution is simply that there is no mechanism to make it work. Assuming that evolution is true and the Creation account is a myth is not proof.
Evolutionists Still Blunder about Natural Selection – CEH
A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began
Sure, scratch everything you've been told about about Origin of Life. The honest truth is out, finally. Life emerged fully formed. It is not much of a stretch to accept that it was no accident, but the deliberate creation by God. Of course, don't expect godless science to make that small step any time soon.
This is only an introduction to the article as I'm not paying to subscribe to New Scientist.
"WHEN Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, it was a sterile ball of rock, slammed by meteorites and carpeted with erupting volcanoes. Within a billion years, it had become inhabited by microorganisms. Today, life covers every centimetre of the planet, from the highest mountains to the deepest sea. Yet, every other planet in the solar system seems lifeless. What happened on our young planet? How did its barren rocks, sands and chemicals give rise to life?
Many ideas have been proposed to explain how life began. Most are based on the assumption that cells are too complex to have formed all at once, so life must have started with just one component that survived and somehow created the others around it. When put into practice in the lab, however, these ideas don’t produce anything particularly lifelike. It is, some researchers are starting to realise, like trying to build a car by making a chassis and hoping wheels and an engine will spontaneously appear.
The alternative – that life emerged fully formed – seems even more unlikely. Yet perhaps astoundingly, two lines of evidence are converging to suggest that this is exactly what happened. It turns out that all the key molecules of life can form from the same simple carbon-based chemistry. What’s more, they easily combine to make startlingly lifelike “protocells”. As well as explaining how life began, this “everything-first” idea of life’s origins also has implications for where it got started – and the most likely locations for extraterrestrial life, too."
When I examine OOL, there is little consensus among scientists and new theories are being introduced form time to time. Scientists generally agree that life arose spontaneously. What they cannot agree on is how. Now someone has decided that decades of research got it wrong, something that Christians have been saying for, well, decades.
The atheist contributors to the forum accuse me of providing no evidence. How on earth can I refute an argument that is a constantly moving target?
My argument against evolution is simply that there is no mechanism to make it work. Assuming that evolution is true and the Creation account is a myth is not proof.
Evolutionists Still Blunder about Natural Selection – CEH
