Slashdot Mirror
Primordial Soup: Interview with Stanley Miller
An anonymous reader writes "Stanley Miller's classic 'primordial soup' experiments showed that 13 of the 21 amino acids necessary for life could be made in a glass flask. For its fifty-year commemoration, Miller is interviewed today and reflects on what Carl Sagan
called 'the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos.'"
Carl Sagan wasn't really respected in the fields of science as many would like for us to believe. He had popular "propoganda" like shows on PBS more to promote his books than anything. The movie "Contact" gave him a little recognition only because the movie was made believable (and bias I might add)
Most scientists will tell you the Carl Sagan coined phrase "If just one in a Billion, then one in that billion...." isn't plausible. (More logical fallacy) Most TRUELY academic scientists will tell you there seems to be "some" evidence of a creator or at the very least a "lottery for life". So, the chances are actually incalculable. Lottery = your chances in getting picked out the pool may be one in a million, but your chances of picking the right number on the right day and being that one in a million are impossible odds. Then you have the odds of actually claiming your prize and meeting the eligibility/legitimacy of the prize.
Amino acids, planet size, PRECISE planetary evolution, distance from a sun, atmosphere, OTHER life, moons and magnetic/gravtational forces all contribute to life existing. Not a single scientists has been able to prove 100% that life exists elsewhere, only propoganda and conjecture.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
The first clue to your trolling was that you gave Carl Sagan credit for one of his mentor's equations for the possibilities of life: Drake.
Carl Sagan was a great scientist and more importantly, was able to convey science to un-scientific people.
..his ass was full of protein soup, if you know what I mean.
I have absolutely nothing to add to this discussion. Please accept this troll in lieu of insight. Thank you.
Sort of off-topic, but then again, sort of on...
I remember a philosophy class I took my first year of college... The final exam was the professor putting a chair in the middle of the room and then telling us "write in no less than 1,500 words why the chair exists".
Well, I sat there for about an hour not being able to come up with anything reasonable to put down. So, finally I gave up...
I wrote on the paper: "What chair?!?" and handed that in.
I got an A+.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
I tire of these conversations. If you want to get serious and look at these questions in depth from a creationist perspective, then my e-mail address is tunip at tyreth.homelinux.org.
If you want to try and tell us things we know aren't true (such as creationism not having had a single valid prediction), then don't bother. I've had altogether too many evolutionists who think they understand our position (their summary is "an appeal to magic/omnipotent creator to explain apparent contradictions") but are not interested in discovering if what they believe is true or not.