Some claims by evolutionists sound cool, calm and collected until you see them in context.
An example appeared in Science Daily and Astrobiology Magazine – a claim that life may have originated in salty, icy stalactites under the sea ice. Need “clues to the origin of life”? The article says, “Life on Earth may have originated not in warm tropical seas, but with weird tubes of ice — sometimes called ‘sea stalactites’ — that grow downward into cold seawater near Earth’s poles, scientists are reporting.”
That’s a major shift toward further implausibility. From Darwin’s own speculations about a “warm little pond,” origin-of-life researchers have long claimed that heat is necessary to drive the reactions for life. That’s why some have imagined life’s origin at a hydrothermal vent, or lakes near a volcano, or at least in the open ocean exposed to sunlight. But “sea stalactites” of ice in the coldest oceans on earth?
Even more desperate is the analogy the researchers of the American Chemical Society posed: these “brinicles,” as they have been dubbed, look like “chemical gardens” kids play with. They look like “children’s chemistry sets, in which tubes grow upward from metal salts dropped into silicate solution.” Being made of the wrong stuff, those structures have absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.
From there, the article descended into rank speculation:
The analysis concluded that brinicles provide an environment that could well have fostered the emergence of life on Earth billions of years ago, and could have done so on other planets. “Beyond Earth, the brinicle formation mechanism may be important in the context of planets and moons with ice-covered oceans,” the report states, citing in particular two moons of Jupiter named Ganymede and Callisto.
It’s safe to assume that if origin-of-life researchers had something better than this to propose, they would have proposed it long ago.
NASA’s Astrobiology Institute is a worthless boondoggle that accomplishes nothing. Where is their evidence? They study planets, rocks, and possibly oceans, but there is still no evidence for life beyond Earth’s biosphere. It’s an enterprise built entirely on faith in a Darwinian ideology. Astrobiology Magazine publishes almost nothing original. Day after day they re-post press releases from other sources that say, “maybe this” and “maybe that.” Did you see the government seal of approval on the webpage?
When “astrobiology” was born as a “new science” back around 1990 because of a rush to celebrate possible fossils in a Martian meteorite (since debunked), then-NASA-chief Dan Goldin convinced Congress to fund research into life on other worlds. Since then, nothing has been accomplished to find life elsewhere, and now they are so desperate they propose cold icicles “could” be environments for the “emergence” of life on other planets. Good grief. One of our readers should research how many millions of tax dollars the government has spent on this Darwinian fantasy trip.
This is not to imply that many astrobiologists are not intelligent, highly-educated scientists. It’s just that their astronomy has nothing to do with biology. Detecting extrasolar planets, studying planetary atmospheres, and characterizing the nature of living creatures at deep-sea vents is all fine and good, but to imply that life “emerged” from non-living environments is supported by no evidence whatsoever. The legitimate studies of planets could have been funded without inventing a new word. Astro-biology is a fabrication, spliced out of two legitimate sciences, astronomy and biology. It is no more legit than geo-psychology or planetary sociology. Without evidence to justify its existence, it should be called astro-bio-mythology.