>
>>JR>"The origin of life is a relatively easy thing and there's a wide
>>variety of conditions under which it will take place," said Stanley
>>Miller, professor emeritus at the University of California at San
>>Diego and a pioneer in the field.
>
>If Miller really said this and he sincerely means it, then it
>confirms everything Johnson says about the hard-core Darwinists not
>even understanding the problem. One might ask Prof. Miller that if
>"The origin of life is a relatively easy thing and there's a wide
>variety of conditions under which it will take place", why after 40
>plus years of trying, he and his colleagues haven't been able to do
>it?
>
I too was surprised by Miller's comment. I suspect he got caught
up in all the excitement, he's usually not one to make exagerated
claims.
[...]
>
>>JR>Astronomers have found that the same gases of our solar system are
>>present throughout the universe. Efforts to make microscopic life
>>from these basic elements on Earth suggest the chance of life arising
>>under similar circumstances is the same everywhere, chemists,
>>biologists and other experts say.
>
SJ:==
>Do I detect the "chance" theory "of life arising"?
No. The statement says nothing about the mechanisms responsible for
the origin of life, it just says that if life arose here then it
has the same chance of arising elsewhere "under similar circumstances".
Even so, the statement is absurd, it is not the *efforts* to make
life that leads to this suggestion, but success at making life.
>SJ: The same
>theory that we are continually being told that no one has
>believed for 30 years? :-) Thaxton, et al note that the appeal to
>chance is not quite dead yet:
>
Have you had a chance yet to check for yourself whether what
you were told is indeed the case?
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
Bastion for the naturalistic | -- Morrowitz
rulers of science |