It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You have created a fallacy,abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things.
People that believe in Creation believe in a Creator.
Most people who believe in the theory of evolution do not.
originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: whereislogic
These guys are hilarious.
Sir Francis Crick the co discoverer of DNA came to realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for DNA to have formed on its own.
He came to believe that Panspermia was the explanation for life on earth.
They can say what they want, but abiogenesis is impossible.
Evolution is a religious belief that goes back to ancient India. Darwin was simply parroting a belief system that was thousands of years old.
Crick was a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."
Crick referred to himself as a humanist, which he defined as the belief "that human problems can and must be faced in terms of human moral and intellectual resources without invoking supernatural authority." He publicly called for humanism to replace religion as a guiding force for humanity, writing-
"The human dilemma is hardly new. We find ourselves through no wish of our own on this slowly revolving planet in an obscure corner of a vast universe. Our questioning intelligence will not let us live in cow-like content with our lot. We have a deep need to know why we are here. What is the world made of? More important, what are we made of? In the past religion answered these questions, often in considerable detail. Now we know that almost all these answers are highly likely to be nonsense, having sprung from man's ignorance and his enormous capacity for self-deception... The simple fables of the religions of the world have come to seem like tales told to children. Even understood symbolically they are often perverse, if not rather unpleasant... Humanists, then, live in a mysterious, exciting and intellectually expanding world, which, once glimpsed, makes the old worlds of the religions seem fake-cosy and stale...
Crick was especially critical of Christianity:
"I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about.":[91]
Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."
originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: dragonridr
You have created a fallacy,abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things.
The argument should be Creation vs Abiogenesis.
Everyone knows what is being discussed.
People that believe in Creation believe in a Creator.
Most people who believe in the theory of evolution do not.
I always laugh when people want to act like evolution is somehow suspended in mid air, and unconnected to abiogenesis or the big bang.
It is intellectually dishonest.
Care to provide a citation from this nonsense?
Intellectually dishonest? you mean like making claims about Crick that you don't support with any evidence? That's to be expected though from the scientifically illiterate.
It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that Pasteur and Tyndall completed the demonstration that spontaneous generation is not occurring on the earth nowadays. Darwin and a number of other biologists concluded that life must have evolved here long ago when conditions were more favourable. A number of scientists, however, drew a quite different conclusion. They supposed that if life does not evolve from terrestrial nonliving matter nowadays, it may never have done so. Hence, they argued, life reached the earth as an “infection” from another planet (Oparin, 1957). Arrhenius
The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.
People have often explored the possibility of life outside the realms of earth. The key issue that is in focus in the book Life Itself lightly touches and deals with this possibility. However, what the author, Francis Crick, is genuinely concerned with is the origin of life on earth. Throughout this book, he presents another possible explanation for the existence of life. Crick’s theory is a polished version of Panspermia called Directed Panspermia. Panspermia was a theory suggested by the Swedish physicist Arrhenius who proposed that life was “seeded by microorganisms wafted in from space” (Crick 15). However, other scientists did not find the idea at all convincing and criticized him by stating that the spores could not have managed the journey without being tarnished by radiation. Directed Panspermia circumvents this criticism with the help of an additional clause that seeds could have traveled in the “head of an unmanned spaceship sent to earth by a higher civilization which had developed elsewhere some billions of years ago” (Crick 15-16).
Crick and Orgel proposed their Directed Panspermia theory at a conference on Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence, organized by Carl Sagan and held at the Byuraka Observatory in Soviet Armenia in 1971. This theory which they described as an “highly unorthodox proposal” and “bold speculation” was presented as a plausible scientific hypothesis. Two years after the conference they published an article in Icarus on 1973.
Crick and Orgel were careful to point out that Directed Panspermia was not a certainty; but rather a plausible alternative that ought to be taken seriously. In the paper Crick and Orgel recognised that they “do not have any strong arguments of this kind, but there are two weak facts that could be relevant”. The 1973 paper focuses on the universality of the genetic code and the role that molybdenum plays in living organisms (I am likewise working on a history of molybdenum and the origins of life) which is more than one would expected given the abundance of molybdenum on the earth’s crust.
Crick and Orgel also suggest that the universe is sufficiently old that other intelligent civilizations could had arisen elsewhere. One of these other intelligent civilizations could have built a spaceship and seeded the universe with life. One can easily imagine a not too distant future where humans accept that our planet and all that lives within it will perish. In the unlikelihood that this is the only planet that harbors life in the universe its demise would leave a lifeless universe.
The origins of life remains an unresolved mystery. I argue that Crick and Orgel’s paper was meant both as a serious and plausible scientific alternative and as a means to criticize concurrent origins of life. Considering the life arose elsewhere could also free scientists studying the origin of life from trying to imitate the alleged conditions of a pre-biotic Earth. My ongoing research suggests that while Orgel abandoned Directed Panspermia, Crick continued to advocate for its viability and to argue in its favor. Our continued exploration of space will, presumably, continue to reveal the existence of organic compounds in space (and quite possibly life) and hence suggest that the universe may be beaming with life.
Crick and Orgel also suggest that the universe is sufficiently old
originally posted by: dusty1
a reply to: whereislogic
These guys are hilarious.
Sir Francis Crick the co discoverer of DNA came to realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for DNA to have formed on its own.
He came to believe that Panspermia was the explanation for life on earth.
They can say what they want, but abiogenesis is impossible.
Evolution is a religious belief that goes back to ancient India. Darwin was simply parroting a belief system that was thousands of years old.
"Sir Francis Crick the co discoverer of DNA came to realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for DNA to have formed on its own. He came to believe that Panspermia was the explanation for life on earth."
To colleagues on the board
So. You never read the paper. You never read the book. You never reviewed the references.
But like I said, (a) If some other being artificially created us, then who created them? and (b) panspermia v. abiogenesis has very little, if anything, to do with the evolution of species.