Are Evolutionists Coming To Grips With Primordial Soup?

Evolutionary scientists have been trying for many years to answer one of the more fundamental questions about their hypothesis, “how did life arise?” For the past 80 years, evolutionists have been advocating that chemicals produced life in a soup type situation. A new study reveals…

“Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won’t work at all,” said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London.”

“We present the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent – one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores.”

Many of these arguments used in the study were presented by creation scientists many years ago. It has been also presented in here…So, why is it that we have scientific observations which do not confirm life evolving from the soup like the destructive power of ultraviolet light and oxygen coming out now? Because they have finally come up with another way to try and explain how life began, this time through hydrothermal sea vents.

These vents have their own problems with creating information for life and then life itself as experiments have already shown. Evolutionary scientists claim the evidence is in the “zinc” instead of what the oceans consist of, “salt.” So how could natural means produce zinc? Can zinc really help produce life because it can store energy? There are so many of these conjecture ideas concerning the origin of life in evolution. What we observe is life comes from life, this is scientific and it’s biblical!

14 thoughts on “Are Evolutionists Coming To Grips With Primordial Soup?

  1. [Cont. from Comments under Blog Post From ‘SETI Demostrates Faith With Fiction’]


    Finally, I wish you would stop saying ‘put up or shut up’ about my comments about your manner and comments, Eelco. I think I have referred you about two or three times to specific examples I have presented. Is it that you do not wish to read that post? Or that you cannot be bothered to check the specific instances I referred you to? Or that you just wish to deny the existence of the instances I cited?

    Why do you decree ‘links to comments’ are inadmissible, Eelco? That seems a perfectly straightforward way to refer to things you have said.

    But, tell you what, just to show willing, as you seem to be having so much trouble finding your way round the comments here and elsewhere, I shall now undertake to not only (1) provide again, right here and now, what I said in the post above, but shall even go so far as to (2) provide further examples.

    (1) Here is what I said above (February 11, 2010 at 10:49 am) –

    ‘And concerning your coyness about your manner, you need look no further than your pompous, derisive ticking off of Michael above in dismissing his figures.

    And a look through your comments on previous posts soon reveals a consistently dismissive arrogance and derisive tone.

    You constantly present interpretative theory and opinion as absolute fact; you get stroppy when any opinion differing with yours is afforded any credibility; you feel yourself perfectly free to make derisive and insulting comments like ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’


    which are based entirely on the fact you yourself evidently subscribe to a Naturalistic worldview; you persistently try to admonish others in a patronising way; I think you called Michael completely ignorant twice and said he was talking nonsense twice in the space of just a few posts here –

    Indeed, calling Michael ignorant seems to be becoming something of a pastime of yours, here are just a couple of other examples –

    Altogether, your whole manner is confrontational and condescending; patronising, derisive and insulting in tone and in specific comments.’

    Okay, so there we have a general description of your manner and five specific examples –

    1- your initial comment on this post (February 9, 2010 at 3:27 am) which was derisive and dismissive in tone.

    2 – your comment ‘Personally I find the fact that there are still so many religious people around quite mysterious’ which is a derisive, dismissive, condescending and insulting thing to say.
    August 6, 2009 at 6:54 am

    3 – calling Michael ignorant twice within a few posts

    ‘shows your complete ignorance of this theory’
    October 4, 2009 at 5:48 am


    ‘You keep on displaying a complete ignorance’
    October 5, 2009 at 1:08 am


    4 – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘your post again shows complete ignorance on this topic’
    September 2, 2009 at 2:50 am

    5 – – another example of calling Michael ignorant –

    ‘You are again displaying severe ignorance in physics’
    January 31, 2009 at 7:56 am

    Okay, so those are five specific examples I gave on my previous post. They were a sampling; not meant to be exhaustive; just some specific examples of your manner and comments.

    Next, let me provide further specific examples.


  2. “Are Evolutionists Coming To Grips With Primordial Soup?”

    Michael, Michael. Didn’t they warn you about mixed metaphors in Creationist Blogging 101? How would you grip soup? You might try “Primordial Soup Leaves Bitter Taste” or “Evilutionists Drink the Dregs of Primordial Soup.”

    Took you long enough—

    Olorin (Feb 3, 2010): “Go ahead, Michael. Go for the science-by-press-release angle. You know I’ll be waiting. (Hint: I read about this theory in Scientific American last year. Haldane didn’t invent the primordial soup theory. Chemical gradient OOL proposals are not new. And other interesting erors from Science Daily, if you might care to drag this article out as a “new discovery about creationism.”

  3. Michael, does it ever strike you as ironic that when you write about origin of life, it is always in the context of a new discovery of how it might have occurred? Sure, you concentrate on the news that an older theory has been mdified, but the news really is that now we know more than we did before.

    There are a number of problems in origin-of-life research. First, we have only a few clues as to the conditions that existed 4 billion years ago on the primordial planet. Second, we have little information as to precursor compounds on the Earth at that time—or available from space. Third, the panoply of possible organic reactions is still largely unknown. Given the first two unknowns, we do we even start with the third?

    Neverthelass, headway is being made. Science, like evolution itself, does not advance in a straight line—or in a line of any kind. Like evolution, it branches. Some branches lead to useful results, others go extinct. But tthe highest branches progress toward greater knowledge.

    Meanwhile creationists progress not at all. They are content to mock those who try.

    Even if the ultimate goal is never reached—if the origin is lost in the lava of time—interesting and useful results will appear along the way. The accidental discovery of antibiotics in unrelated research is but one example. Why certain cellular process work as they do is important to know in order to repair them when they malfunction. Early enzymes may be able to promote industrial reactions on an economic scale.

    Reaching the origin—the index case of life itself—will of course be extremely exciting. It wll inform us about life elsewhaere in the solar system, or elsewhere in the universe Will we be able to create life from scratch? Will we find new ways to modify living organisms, or to propagate life to inhospitable locales? Remember, he who discovers has control. Will it be us or someone else?

    Creationists mock OOL research because of fear. Why? Because they believe that anything that Man understands could not have been created by God. This is the raison behind God-of-the-gaps arguments. They fear the narrowing of the gaps.

    Thius, of course, puts creationist “research” in a bind. Failure to embrace the mantle of science paints them as out of step with modren society. Yet any real research may disprove their faith.

    Wouldn’t it be so much simpler to lose the fear, to allow God to operate as He wills, not as you will?

  4. Michael: “Many of these arguments used in the study were presented by creation scientists many years ago. It has been also presented in here…”

    strong>I call your bluff on that one, Michael. Please list a single argument from any creationist source, including your linked post, that life may have arisen from geochemical gradients in any kind of hydrothermal vent, or from gases therefrom.

    That’s a load of dingoes kidneys, and you know it. Creationists do not advance detailed theories of any kind. much less this one.

    Michael: “So how could natural means produce zinc? ”

    Are you really serious? You mentioned once about balancing electrons in chemistry class. You were obviously talking through your fedora. This may well be the dumbest science factoid you have uttered in a long time.

  5. Michael: “So how could natural means produce zinc? ”

    We must realize that Mitchel’s anonymous source employs a number of stock phrases that he thinks will impress the bejeepers out of the faithful.

    One of them is: “How cold a natural means produce xxx?” (Fill in the xxx’s: life, zinc, hot chicken soup, etc.)

    Another of them is: “Creationists have said all along that xxx is impossible (wrong).” Fill in: autocatalytic reactions, radioisotope dating, hot chicken soup, etc.)

    Yet another: “Scientists squander millions (billions) of hard-earned (our tax) dollars on xxx research.” (Choose: fossil reconstruction, cosmic background radiation, hot chicken soup, etc.)

    Yawn: “Misleading journalistic hype tries to convince the public that xxx has finally been achieved (discovered).” (The origin of life, the source of the big bang, hot chicken soup, etc.)

    Zzzzz; “It is refreshing to note that a complete article has been written on xxx without even once mentioning evolution.” (Prickly pear cactus, the hiccup reflex, hot chicken curry, etc.) [NOTE: This last phrase is an emergency slow-news-day back-up, dragged out only when nothing else can be found.]

    An advantage of such phrases is that anything at all serves in the “xxx” slot, no matter how ignorant,, misleading, or outright false. Scientists lose their professional lives if they misstate or falsify their results. Creationists have no reputation or credibility to begin with, and thus risk nothing.

    The reason that integrity is so important to science is that researchers build upon the work of their forebears to erect a structure of cumulative knowledge. Creationism lacks this concept of progress; Everything demands a fresh start—usually because science has destroyed the previous effort.

  6. Re U/D on “So how could natural means produce zinc?”

    You missed the zinger in the very next sentence:

    “Can zinc really help produce life because it can store energy?”

    It sounds as though Michael believes that zinc is some kind of exotic organic compound or mysterious complex structure. Not the soft white metal of ancient Egyptian ornaments, solder, battery anodes, oil-paint pigments, and underarm deodorants.

    Tell us all, Michael. How exactly does zinc “store energy”?

    Yet another reason people laugh at creationists.

  7. You are not referring to good old zinc-carbon batteries, Michael, when you say that zinc can ‘store energy’ ?

  8. Eelco: “good old zinc-carbon batteries”

    Do you remember those, too? Huge; almost the size of a liter of milk. Wrapped in red-and-blue cardboard that said “Ray-O-Vac.” Thick carbon post that left black powder everywhere when you took it apart. (And we all did, didn’t we?)

    The memory that originally drew me into engineering was looking into the back of the console radio—taller than I was at the time, The warm, lambent glow of the vacuum tubes, the distinctive smell of warm insulation.

    Had I been born later, the outcome might have been a … a … a lawyer or something. Silicon is cold and standoffish. (And, of course, you can’t take it apart :-)

  9. You can’t take anything apart anymore to see how it works–or, in my case, how it used to work before taking it apart. It’s all potted, microscopic, or locked up. Even computer programs—all in object code so you can’t study them. Programming languages are so compllicated that it takes 2,843 lines of code to set up “Hello World.” In Basic–Print “Hello World”/enter.[1]

    More’s the pity. Even nostalgia ain’t what it used to be….


    [1] Once I coded the entire Game of Life, for an arbitrary sized matrix, in a single line of APL code. We used to say that programs in assembly language didn’t work, and you didn’t know why. C programs didn’t work, but you did know why. APL programs did work, but you didn’t know why.

  10. Wow what an insulting batch of comments that sheds zero light on the topic and dwells in deception techniques so often employed by irrational sophists.
    The argument in my opinion boils down to chaos into order or order into chaos. Is it a matter of perspective when you look at from the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning.
    Are we moving to an end time and is our galaxy disintegrating or will we grow and grow endlessly for eternity and is time as we percieve it ifinite.

    It would seem the creationists have a valid point that less life exists on earth now then 12,000 years ago.The last ice age wiped out 96 percent of all organisms. Surely at some point these destroyed life forms should be observed re evolving. We observe mathematical sequences in nature and the relationship of our star on our planet is not fully understood, an infinite amount of discoveries awaits mankind.
    Socrates or was it Plato summed it up best that the debate is timeless and futile on a creator, it can niether be proven or unproven, but how we love to contempleate it. It should be better to understand our enviroment, nature, our existence and keep on accumulating knowledge and perhaps one day our sons and daughters will know the definitive truth. So far we are destroying ourselves and our planet with superstitions, trickery and deception as we continue to enslave the innocent and ignorant for the benefit of a few. It is worht mentioning that in a slave master relationship, it is a parasitical relationship. Humpty dumpty sat on a wall…a desendent of a great leader evolves into a defensless blob in a few centuries, now isnt that odd.

  11. Mike,

    Your comment does really address with any evidence whatsoever the primordial soup situation rather you state, “So far we are destroying ourselves and our planet with superstitions, trickery and deception as we continue to enslave the innocent and ignorant for the benefit of a few.” To suggest that Christianity is destroying lives is “irrational”…Mao Zedong rejected all forms of religion, yet he conducted massive killings of innocent people and enslaved many others.

    What the debate against evolution boils down to is creating original information out of an unthinking process or the information was created by a thinking intelligent being namely, God. The reason why the primordial soup ‘theory’ has been crashing is because of what we know today about the laws of chemistry and the lack of any observational evidence. Hypothesis first always sounds better in evolution than the actual discoveries themselves.

  12. Michael, could you define ‘information’.
    This is one of those terms that is heavily abused by creationist.

    Oh, and you STILL have not replied to our questions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s