Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis

[Max35]

Discuss:

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html

The gist of the article I got seemed to think a Supreme Intelligence was the more attractive alternative. I'm not saying I agree.

 

[Tr0n]

Well considering Southwestern Adventist College is affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church..I would expect no less of this article to lean towards a "supreme intelligence" theory and what have you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_Adventist_College

I shall read the article later.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What the shit is this?

"If a careful scientific analysis leads us to conclude that the proposed mechanisms of spontaneous origin could not have produced a living cell, and in fact that no conceivable natural process could have resulted in the spontaneous origin of life, the alternative hypothesis of Creation becomes the more attractive. If, on the other hand, we find the proposed mechanisms to be plausible, we must be aware that the methods of science can never answer with certainty the question of origin."

Translated, that entire first paragraph says "I don't know anything, so anything I believe must be equally plausible as scientific fact."
That's bullshit.

Paragraph 2:

"Yet cells as we know them today are exceedingly complex."

We're not talking about the cells of today, asshole!
We're talking about the cells of around several billion years ago.
He acknowledges that fact later, so then why did he bring up the complexity of modern cells in the first place?

Further bullshit: he's using "naturalist" as a deceptive word for "scientist".
Everything in science is natural. When you introduce supernatural events, you become some sort of priest.
However, it doesn't sound as good to say that every legitimate scientist in the world doesn't accept your guesswork.

Further bullshit: laboratory experiments have actually produced most of the key chemicals, yet he still considers a chemical origin to be less plausible than space god.
Occam's razor?

Further questions: why is he so vague on important figures?
During the section "Evidence for a reducing atmosphere" his only real clear source for the free oxygen claim is H. Ohmoto.

He says:
"More recently, Ohmoto and others (Ohmoto et. Al., 2006) have asserted compellingly that the atmosphere of earth was oxygenated as early as 3.8by ago."

Wrong!

Here's the conclusion from the actual paper:

"We propose three possible interpretations of the MIF-S geologic record: (1) the level of atmospheric oxygen fluctuated greatly during the Archaean era; (2) the atmosphere has remained oxic since approx3.8 Gyr ago, and MIF-S in sedimentary rocks represents times and regions of violent volcanic eruptions that ejected large volumes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere; or (3) MIF-S in rocks was mostly created by non-photochemical reactions during sediment diagenesis, and thus is not linked to atmospheric chemistry."

Our sciency friend here ignored two out of three conclusions!
What makes option 2 "more plausible" than 1 and 3?
As tr0n pointed out: BIAS.

I'll read more later, but that's cast some doubt in my mind already about this guy's credibility.

 

[Max35]

Yeah I sensed a little bias as well. I didn't read the whole thing, but will later. I doubt it will be anymore convincing afterwards.

 

[kirovman]

<3 Mecha

 

[Apos]

It's wrong to write it off as bias. It's fundamentally ignorant of the subject it's trying to talk about. It's like a three-year old trying to lecture a mathematics professor on calculus. Beyond idiotic.

 

[Max35]

Perhaps it is a combination of bias and ignorance, then?