Life's origin is a riddle for which naturalism has no answer. For this very reason many have rejected the naturalistic explanation. Those who remain in the naturalist camp usually say one of two things. Some tell us life came from outer space. Others say, it didn't.
Spores or microspores have been found on meteorites, and a few claim these spores are circling around other planets. It is impossible to prove or disprove their theory. Perhaps the meteorites simply picked these spores up when they entered earth's atmosphere.
That brings up the question: If spores are really out there drifting around in space, how did they ever escape their home planet's gravitation field?
Remember, naturalists claim atoms combined by chance to produce life. Without gravity, the chance of any atoms uniting is about nil. And if the spores ever did somehow make it to space, they would be subjected to radiation, severe heat, and cold. Can they survive all of that? If so, when spores are sucked into earth's atmosphere, what is to prevent them from burning up on entry?
Due to these inherent difficulties, most scientists say life on earth probably started here rather than elsewhere. Besides, as we have seen, all 24 chemical molecules found in living organisms are natural elements native to earth. Therefore, it is not necessary to look beyond this planet for life's origins.
Even if the "spores from space" idea were true, it would not solve anything. Panspermia, as the theory is called, merely pushes the mysterious beginnings of life back to another place, another world. If you have enough imagination, you can envision spores drifting serenely along from one planet to another populating the solar system.
But why stop there? By quirk, let's say a few enterprising spores made their way from one end of the universe to the other. Still, they had to start somewhere. Somewhere in this universe those spores had a sphere they could call home. There, they had their origins. There, they were either accidents or they were designed. It had to be one or the other.
The majority of naturalists agree that Panspermia is improvable and irrelevant. Then how do they account for the origin of life? Plain and simple, they don't. Eventually, they believe some additional bit of information will come down the pike. And it will show how life might have made its way by natural means. Some future investigation or experiment will exonerate their faith in naturalism. . A couple of things need to be said here. First, no investigation or experiment can ever prove that life began in any particular way. The most it can do is offer us a theoretical possibility. That is to say, it could have happened this or that way. Second, naturalists are not ignorant. They too realize that the preponderance of evidence favors design. However, they are quite willing to dismiss substantial data which they find distasteful and place their trust in future events, hoping for more favorable news.
That is not a scientific approach. In fact, it is not science at all.
Quote of the Day: "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashionable." G. K. Chesterton (1874 -1936) English author
Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of http://merechristianity.us His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE - EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.
» left by JL from US (1 year 230 days ago.)
Good article. Thanks for presenting the unpopular belief of today's society. I just can't believe that I am here "by chance". Respond to this comment
Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or
Question:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
