Originally Posted by wwjs
Think of the most widely accepted theory (which has a different meaning in a scientific context by the way) you can and go read a scientific paper on it. You will see the word theory and could pop up all the time because that is the nature of science. Uncertainty is a critical part of the process and absolute certainty is never found in situations like this.
Why has this discussion turned again in a creationist-evolutionist dîck contest ??
As far as it goes the title is misleading : life began in water. Liquid water. Warm liquid water. Which is the basic solvent for a lot of biological reactions.
Now to know if it began in shore line waters or in pond waters is just a scientific detail (and matter of ego contest)
But just a remark
PNAS < Nature or Science
I've been following this story for a few months. I find it very interesting. NASA's Astrobiology site has more on the issue.
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/article...imordial-soup/
Debatable.
Regarding impact surely. But not necessarily when it comes to credit among scientists. Nature and science often have somewhat spectacular articles that are interesting to the public, but sometimes not that much to scientists working in the respective field. PNAS articles are also much more detailed.
Btw hasnt the leading theory always been that life was created in some calm pond? Open sea water would be way too much in motion.
I bet the scientists really groaned when they saw how journalists interpreted it.
So is gravity.
They do know how to mangle a concept.
So either my ancestors were inbred, or I evolved from some unintelligent sludge. Neither of them is all that appealing.
agreed on the first part
For the second part you are right too. It was always supposed that life appeared in small shoreline ponds or calm shore shallow waters
Certainly not in the middle of the oceans
heh, I lol'd
Actually Protestants (specially Calvinists and Evangelicals of different flavors) would say basically the same thing with some nuances :
1) the reason would be the "original sin" from a religion those guys originally never heard of
2) regarding salvation, they can forget about it. It's only for the chosen (i.e the missionaries and members of their Church who embraced Jeebus, but no guarantee, no matter what deeds they have been doing in their life).
Catholics at least grant them eternal life if they are baptized and behave. In the worst case they can be "saved" by the last rites. Actually suffering and an ascetic life are more or less a passport to Paradise, specially in the Medieval concept.
The Calvinist concept of predestination (rejected by the Catholics and by Luther) means that your chances to go to hell are 99,9%. For Catholics and Lutherans, it's the contrary.
First Hot tub party, sans clothing.
Be nice if that did not happen. Some people are still are very insecure in their ____________________.Why has this discussion turned again in a creationist-evolutionist dîck contest ??
time for some amendmends to Godwin's laws to reflect mp.net realities.
Realities like Strong discussions, BDP, RMM and of course religion.
Excellent!
Thread title needs work
Now, a new study has claimed the theory proposed by the legendary naturalist more than 140 years ago could actually be right.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
