It is possible that God really does exist... - by Queue
DDL on 29/8/2013 at 17:36
This bit kinda made me herp derp:
Quote:
besides water is corrosive to RNA
Uh...that'd be RNA, the incredibly widely-spread, universally required for life molecule that is
entirely dependent on its solubility in water to..well, do anything except make pretty crystals on the side of a tube?
Ok, RNA
does break down in water (it breaks down in pretty much everything, because ALL EXISTENCE IS LIKE PLAYING DARK SOULS for RNA molecules), but it does so fairly slowly, and more importantly: it's also only capable of doing anything relevant to life (or forming life) when in an aqueous environment.
Fun article otherwise, though! :)
Eshaktaar on 29/8/2013 at 19:07
Maybe I'm easily amused, but I found the matching color scheme and overall framing of both the Mars image and the video preview of the turbaned gentleman quite hilarious, as if the article was trying to imply that man must obviously come from Mars because he even
looks like the planet.
Inline Image:
http://www.hulub.ch/temp/MARS.jpgRobert4222 on 29/8/2013 at 20:06
Panspermy, prebiotic synthesis or Chuck Norris selection, I still don't get why those theories seem to be incompatible with God's existence.
DDL on 29/8/2013 at 20:17
Incompatible, no.
Entirely unrelated to, yes.
These are providing consistent, plausible, falsifiable theories as to how life could arise in the complete absence of a divine beardy guy. Doesn't mean a divine beardy guy didn't do it (because that particular theory isn't falsifiable), but they provide evidence that such a thing could happen without him.
"God may or may not exist, but it doesn't matter, because this stuff can happen anyway. And if you can prove us wrong, PLEASE DO."
That's much more mentally satisfying a state of affairs, to me.
Phatose on 29/8/2013 at 20:26
They aren't incompatible with a god. They're incompatible with the Genesis account of creation, and they generally make god an unnecessary complication. Both are unacceptable to Biblical literalists who generally attack this kind of science.
Can't say I cared for the article though. The stated conclusion - life started on Mars - does not follow from the argument they're using.
Boron and Molybdenum are needed for life to evolve. They didn't exist on early earth, but did on Mars. OK, so shouldn't we consider the possibility that a martian meteorite landed carry, not carrying life, but carrying the substances necessary to catalyze life here?
faetal on 29/8/2013 at 20:29
Science + media often = exaggeration and or hyperbole.
Nicker on 29/8/2013 at 21:26
Quote Posted by DDL
Doesn't mean a divine beardy guy didn't do it...
Are you sure? I thought that was a picture of God in the video thumbnail, and the planet was where he lived.
Nicker on 29/8/2013 at 21:32
Quote Posted by faetal
Science + media often = exaggeration and or hyperbole.
Recently there was a History of the Universe sort of animated special on the Discovery Channel where they obviously spent way more on the graphics than they did to say, hire a high school science teacher to check their facts.
One minute in and they were doing the old, lightening bolt in a mud-puddle and presto... LIFE, crap, which has been out of circulation for decades, except in the form of creationist straw-men!
:mad:
Robert4222 on 29/8/2013 at 22:26
There are two kind people I hate in this world:
-Those who take seriously everything written in the Bible or Koran. These "God books" as some believers call them are written by ordinary mortals who used to share a lot of time with the prophets and so, they can be interpreted in endless ways. Also, most of the moral rules they set were accord to their respective historical context, and applying those in our own actual context makes not very much sense.
-Those smug atheist (not atheists in general) who think they are superior because they only believe in science
