Does the new evolutionary claim that life started on a giant slushy tell us anything?

Question

Astronomers in the UK are claiming life is much more unlikely ... a trillion trillion times... less likely to evolve on earth than on a 'slushy comet', so claims astophsisists from the UK in an upcoming article

is this theory a bit reaching? perhaps grasping at a shooting straw by faith? or entirely reasonable? and does it make creation by God on earth more credible or less. It is perhaps more revealing about the poverty of the speculations related to life oriigns apart from a creator and the ability of man to leap by faith in ways to avoid GOd or an example of scientific ingenuity at its best?

Answer 1

It tells us that current evolution theories are woefully inadequate to explain what we see today...and new theories about origins change almost daily in the illusory world of make believe evolution.

LATEST NEWSWEEK POLL:

91% of Americans believe in God. Almost half of all Americans reject the theory of evolution. 82% of Americans say they are Christian. One-third of all college graduates say they ACCEPT the Biblical account of Creation AS FACT.....according to latest Newsweek poll -- March 30, 2007.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/

Answer 2

When we use a word as something that is "likely" ,Probablity is implied.
Probability theory describes a Probability function as having a particular distribution curve.
Therefore probability is a dependent function. That means it is a forced function. Meaning an event does not occur out of nothing.
As the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics indicates "you obtain nothing out of nothing"

Besides the Biblical account of Creation ;We(the wolrld of science) know very little of how Creation of the Universe actually took place, including all biological life therein.

Out of all the theories of Biology and Cosmology, we still are not able to Expain what is Life.
Except Jesus The Christ said "... I am the Life..."

Answer 3

Astrophysicists have to publish papers to keep a job, so they have to come up with hypotheses or addendums to current theories to write on. Scientists proved 40 years ago that the basic component gases (nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen), and liquified water, necessary to create the basic molecules required for modern organisms to evolve (amino acids, basic sugars, fatty acid chains, etc.) existed 3 billion years ago on our planet. Whether some higher being is responsible for organizing those elements or not is unprovable by any logical means and thus beyond the realm of science (No, you can't point to your holy book to prove that your holy book is correct, that's circular reasoning.) . Sorry fellow humans, we just aren't as special as we'd like to think we are. Insects alone outnumber us a million to one, and they are much more genetically varied and thus as a class are more likely to survive the next evolutionary hiccup, whether caused by asteroid collision, solar radiation, widespread disease, geological disaster, or our own stupidity.

Answer 4

No self respecting scientist or researcher would use the term: "a trillion trillion times"

Answer 5

Okay, it's pretty obvious that your understanding of the research is quite superficial. I know it's much more fun to pass judgment on things without going to the trouble of really learning about them, but PLEASE; for everyone's sake, don't make a fool of yourself by expounding opinions on topics you don't understand.

Answer 6

http://vlca.net/