From: user6340@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   JTEM  posted:   
   >   
   > Two over reaching theories.   
      
   Actually, I was looking for evidence -- such as the   
   evidence you say "fundies" ignore when looking at the   
   evidence for evolution. I do realize there is micro-   
   evolution, in which minor changes happen within a   
   species. But there is no conclusive evidence that   
   any species has ever changed into another species.   
   >   
   > #1. Abiogenesis.   
   >   
   > This is the idea that life spontaneously formed from   
   > non life.   
   >   
   > A lot of people have a rather difficult time wrapping   
   > their head around this:  A pile of dirt turned into   
   > something alive. At least today. In the past it was a   
   > very common explanation though. Mice, for example,   
   > spontaneously formed all the time, according to the   
   > people of the past. Leave a pile of rags in the corner   
   > and sooner or later mice will spontaneously appear,   
   > living in it!   
   >   
   > Bugs were the same way, apparently...   
   >   
   > So at one point abiogenesis was the stupid man's   
   > explanation for life.... you didn't see mice, now   
   > you see mice, they obviously formed spontaneously!   
   >   
   > NOTE:  Even today people argue over how captive bodies   
   > of water (lakes/ponds) can have fish, frogs and other   
   > life!  Where did it come from?   
      
   It's possible that the body of captive body of water   
   might have been the scene of a flood at some point   
   in the past, and fish and other lifeforms wound up   
   in that body of water before the flood receded.   
   >   
   > Anyway, so the ignorant people liked abiogenesis, life   
   > from non life, and now all the smart people do. Only   
   > they favor extremely simple/simplistic life that very   
   > slowly evolved into more complex forms, eventually   
   > branching off into everything we see today.   
   >   
   > Biggest problem with abiogenesis?   
   >   
   > IT'S NOT SCIENCE!   
   >   
   > It's not a theory, it's not a hypothesis, it's a matter   
   > of faith. And just like other religious beliefs, no   
   > amount of failed experiments can ever falsify the belief.   
      
   I agree with that.   
   >   
   > People have been trying to reproduce abiogenesis under   
   > laboratory conditions for more than 60 years, and failing   
   > every single time. But the believe persists despite the   
   > lack of evidence.   
      
   Yes, I have made that point that even under laboratory   
   conditions, scientists couldn't create life -- yet they   
   want us to believe that in a chaotic world, a single   
   cell just popped into being alive, and somehow managed   
   to survive and gradually produce all the complicated   
   lifeforms that have ever existed. It does seem sort   
   of silly if you really stop and think about it.   
   >   
   > #2.  Panspermia   
   >   
   > There's different flavors of panspermia but they all come   
   > down to the earth being seeded with life.   
      
   Wherever that life came from.   
   >   
   > The ultimate and perhaps earliest version of panspermia   
   > has life appearing as a consequence of the Big Bang, in   
   > space, only to fall on planets everywhere across the   
   > universe. And where that life could take root and grow,   
   > it did, the earth being one such place.   
   >   
   > THE LEAST exotic flavor of panspermia has life maybe   
   > spontaneously forming elsewhere and then "cross contaminating"   
   > the earth. The most likely culprit? Mars!   
      
   Okay, how did the first life originate? What caused   
   it to pop into life? And how did it survive space   
   travel?   
   >   
   > I tend to favor Panspermia as the origins of life on earth.   
   > Just because if we assume that life can spontaneously form,   
   > it had to happen many times before it had a chance to happen   
   > here.   
   >   
   > Mars cooled quicker, developed the conditions we believe   
   > where life took root, earlier than the earth. So if abiogenesis   
   > is possible it likely happened there, and if life began in   
   > space as a consequence of the Big Bang, it took root & grew   
   > on Mars before it could here. So Mars is the likely source of   
   > life on earth... it had hundreds of millions of years to   
   > evolve, most likely, before an asteroid impact or super   
   > volcano ejected life into space, only to fall here.   
      
   Life still had to start somewhere. How did it just   
   pop into existence, wherever it began?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)