Lets consider this.

TOO HOT TO HANDLE.

The next jarring bump on the Darwinist road to embattlement came when they learned that in certain places around the globe there existed remnants of what had to be the very first pieces of the Earth's crust. Those most ancient slabs of rock are called cratons, and the story of their survival for 4. 0 billion [4,000,000,000] years is a miracle in itself. But what is most miraculous about them is that they contain fossils of "primitive" bacteria! Yes, bacteria, preserved in 4. 0-billion-year-old cratonal rock. If that's not primitive, what is? However, it presented Darwinists with an embarrassing conundrum.

If Earth began to coalesce out of the solar system's primordial cloud of dust and gas around 4. 5 billion years ago (which by then was a well-supported certainty), then at 4. 0 billion years ago the proto-planet was still a seething ball of cooling magma. No warm ponds would appear on Earth for at least a billion years or more. So how to reconcile reality with the warm-pond fantasy?

There was no way to reconcile it, so it was ignored by all but the specialists who had to work with it on a daily basis. Every other Darwinist assumed a position as one of the "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" monkeys. To say they "withheld" the new, damaging information is not true; to say it was never emphasised in the popular media for public consumption is true.

That has become the way Darwinists handle any and all challenges to their pet theories: if they can no longer defend one, they don't talk about it, or they talk about it as little as possible. If forced to talk about it, they invariably try to "kill the messenger" by challenging any critic's "credentials". If the critic lacks academic credentials equal to their own, he or she is dismissed as little more than a crackpot. If the critic has equal credentials, he or she is labelled as a "closet Creationist" and dismissed. No career scientist can speak openly and vociferously against Darwinist dogma without paying a heavy price. That is why and how people of normally good conscience can be and have been "kept in line" and kept silent in the face of egregious distortions of truth.

If that system of merciless censure weren't so solidly in place, then surely the next Darwinist stumble would have made headlines around the world as the final and absolute end to the ridiculous notion that life could possibly have assembled itself "naturally". They couldn't even be sure it happened on Earth.

TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE

The imposing edifice of Darwinian "origin of life" dogma rested on a piece of incontrovertible bedrock: there could be only one progenitor for all of life. When the fortuitous lightning bolt struck the ideally concocted warm pond, it created only one entity. However, it was no ordinary entity. With it came the multiple ability to take nourishment from its environment, create energy from that nourishment, expel waste created by the use of that energy and (almost as an afterthought) reproduce itself ad infinitum until one of its millions of subsequent generations sits here at this moment reading these words. Nothing miraculous about that; simply incalculable good fortune.

This was Darwinist gospel--preached and believed--until the bacteria fossils were found in the cratons. Their discovery was upsetting, but not a deathblow to the Darwinist theory. They had to concede (among themselves, of course) that the first life-form didn't assemble itself in a warm pond, but it came together somehow because every ancient fossil it spawned was a single-celled bacteria lacking a cell nucleus (prokaryotes). Prokaryotes preceded the much later single-celled bacteria with a nucleus (eukaryotes), so the post-craton situation stayed well within the Darwinian framework. No matter how the first life-form came into existence, it was a single unit lacking a cell nucleus, which was mandatory because even the simplest nucleus would be much too "irreducibly complex" (a favourite Intelligent Design phrase) to be created by a lightning bolt tearing through a warm pond's molecular junkyard. So the Darwinists still held half a loaf.

In the mid-1980s, however, biologist Carl Woese stunned his colleagues with a shattering discovery. There wasn't just the predicted (and essential) single source for all forms of life; there were two: two types of prokaryotic bacteria as distinct as apples and oranges, dogs and cats, horses and cows--two distinct forms of life, alive and well on the planet at 4. 0 billion years ago. Unmistakable. Irrefutable. Get over it. Deal with it.

But how? How to explain separate forms of life springing into existence in an environment that would make hell seem like a summer resort? With nothing but cooling lava as far as an incipient eye might have seen, how could it be explained in "natural" terms? Indeed, how could it be explained in any terms other than the totally unacceptable? Life, with all its deepening mystery, had to have been seeded onto Earth.

Source: Krsna views on science.

- A straw man about the 'warm pond fantasy'. The Miller-Urey experiments were set up to mimic the Earth atmosphere at about 4 billion years ago. If you want to believe that one of the analogies usually brought out for media consumption is an accurate description of the actual experiments you are sorely mistaken.

- Strawman 2; "on a piece of incontrovertible bedrock: there could be only one progenitor for all of life". This is absolutely untrue. Based on the similarities between all known life the hypothesis is that there was only one form of live which diversified into all known species, but that is in no way necessity for evolution to be true.

- Straw man 3; Misrepresentation of the work of Carl Woese, the article makes it appears like it is somehow impossible that arachaea evolved from a common ancestor as the other prokaryota, but this seems like wishful thinking by the ID crowd.

Let's consider this?

Let's not!

-m.

THREAD CLOSED.

Originally posted by mikelom
Let's consider this?

Let's not!

-m.

THREAD CLOSED.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Science 1, Dasa/Vishavhetu -1.

Originally posted by nook7
Dasa loses points as soon as he opens his mouth.

If l was a veda following person l would hate him with a passion for the damage he does to the brand.

Maybe he is trying to get them to pay him to shut up?

Originally posted by sonhouse
We had some information he was associated with a certain Hindu temple in Australia, Brisbane? Forget the exact one, I asked him about it and he said he was there for about 6 months but left, couldn't stand the 'politics' there. That has to say something, eh.

Originally posted by nook7
Aah, maybe "politics" means they werent insane.....?

Originally posted by sonhouse
There has to be a story buried in there somewhere, I am sure.