Changing the way we look at the world
Life on Mars
This has been an exciting week for space geeks because NASA has successfully landed a new robot on Mars
One of the stated aims is “searching for signs of past microbial life” in an ancient lakebed
This is based on the belief that all it takes for life to appear is a rocky planet a bit like earth and water plus a few million years.
This is actually a more sophisticated version of the theory of spontaneous generation of life which was debunked a long time ago by no less a scientist than Louis Pasteur who was one of the most important founders of medical microbiology.
Pasteur showed that the idea that life could arise spontaneous was false the same year (1859) that Charles Darwin published his work on the Origin of Species. He carried out a series of simple and elegant experiments with his swan necked flasks. He showed that beef broth could be sterilized by boiling it in a “swan-neck” flask which if sealed while hot would remain sterile. Life never arose spontaneously.
Critics might argue that Pasteur did not use the right conditions and that under the right conditions life can arise spontaneously.
But 150 years later no-one has been able to produce the conditions required for life to arise from non-life. Chemistry does not become biology.
Maybe you disagree, but then all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide a link to the scientific paper or papers which demonstrate that the right mixture of chemical produce life. And please don’t send links to papers which suggest that under certain conditions various bits and pieces (such as amino acids or micelles) can spontaneously arise. That is like saying because a bolt or a screw can appear spontaneously then so can a car.
The scientific evidence shows that life does not arise spontaneously. The belief that life can arise spontaneously is based on the belief that there is no creator and the observation that life exists on Earth. If these two things are true then logically life must have arisen without a creator, even in the face of all the evidence which shows otherwise.
If you are interested in reading more about this issue here is a link to an interesting article. (Please note that I am not saying I agree with everything written there, rather there are some things to think about).
This has been an exciting week for space geeks because NASA has successfully landed a new robot on Mars
One of the stated aims is “searching for signs of past microbial life” in an ancient lakebed
This is based on the belief that all it takes for life to appear is a rocky planet a bit like earth and water plus a few million years.
This is actually a more sophisticated version of the theory of spontaneous generation of life which was debunked a long time ago by no less a scientist than Louis Pasteur who was one of the most important founders of medical microbiology.
Pasteur showed that the idea that life could arise spontaneous was false the same year (1859) that Charles Darwin published his work on the Origin of Species. He carried out a series of simple and elegant experiments with his swan necked flasks. He showed that beef broth could be sterilized by boiling it in a “swan-neck” flask which if sealed while hot would remain sterile. Life never arose spontaneously.
Critics might argue that Pasteur did not use the right conditions and that under the right conditions life can arise spontaneously.
But 150 years later no-one has been able to produce the conditions required for life to arise from non-life. Chemistry does not become biology.
Maybe you disagree, but then all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide a link to the scientific paper or papers which demonstrate that the right mixture of chemical produce life. And please don’t send links to papers which suggest that under certain conditions various bits and pieces (such as amino acids or micelles) can spontaneously arise. That is like saying because a bolt or a screw can appear spontaneously then so can a car.
The scientific evidence shows that life does not arise spontaneously. The belief that life can arise spontaneously is based on the belief that there is no creator and the observation that life exists on Earth. If these two things are true then logically life must have arisen without a creator, even in the face of all the evidence which shows otherwise.
If you are interested in reading more about this issue here is a link to an interesting article. (Please note that I am not saying I agree with everything written there, rather there are some things to think about).
