DNA components found in meteorites
August 11th, 2011
09:17 AM ET

DNA components found in meteorites

NASA researchers have found the building blocks of DNA, the genetic molecule that is essential to all life forms, in meteorites, pieces of space rock that have fallen to Earth. The discovery suggests that similar meteorites and comets may have impacted Earth and assisted in life formation here.

With minimal chance for contamination of the meteorite samples, scientists are confident that these meteorite specimens were formed in space. “People have been discovering components of DNA in meteorites since the 1960's, but researchers were unsure whether they were really created in space or if instead they came from contamination by terrestrial life,” Michael Callahan, lead author of the study on the discovery, said in a statement.

The research team analyzed twelve carbon rich meteorites, nine of which were from Antarctica, to positively identify the basic elements of the chemical compounds they extracted from the samples. Testing revealed adenine and guanine, two fundamental components of DNA called nucleobases.

DNA is shaped like a double helix, or twisted ladder, and the rungs of that ladder are each comprised of two nucleobases, either a pairing of adenine and thymine or of guanine and cytosine. The ladder is essentially a long string of genetic code that tells cells in an organism which proteins to make. Those proteins then play critical roles in organism growth and function, making everything from hair to enzymes.

Scientists also found hypoxanthine and xanthine, two other chemicals used in biological processes and found in muscle tissue.

The meteorites also contained trace amounts of three molecules associated with nucleobases, called nucleobase analogs, but two of those are almost never seen in biology, providing the necessary proof that these DNA components were actually created in outer space.

In fact the only record of any of these nucleobases in biologic processes is within a virus.  Callahan said in the NASA press release that “if asteroids are behaving like chemical 'factories' cranking out prebiotic material, you would expect them to produce many variants of nucleobases, not just the biological ones, due to the wide variety of ingredients and conditions in each asteroid,” and that is exactly what these researchers found. He says the nucleobases found, biological or not, can also be created in a lab setting, using the basic compounds hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and water.

This finding contributes further to the growing collection of evidence that asteroids and comets are comprised of the proper chemicals to generate the building blocks of life. Some seem to have the ideal internal chemistry for the job.

“In fact, there seems to be a ‘goldilocks’ class of meteorites,” Callahan said in a statement, “the so called CM2 meteorites, where conditions are just right to make more of these molecules.”

Post by:
Filed under: Discoveries • News
soundoff (859 Responses)
  1. Waf98

    Why are science journalists so stupid?? The photo on the home page of CNN shows a time-lapse of star motion due to the rotation of earth – under a headline about DNA on meteorites. The clear implication is that the photo shows meteors streaking down to the earth, only those streaks are not meteorites at all. Let's face it, most of us are stoooopid! You can thank our sorry education system for that!

    August 11, 2011 at 11:19 pm |
    • Luker

      Well it got your attention, dumba$$!

      August 11, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
    • Nigel Tufnel

      Maybe you are just too smart for CNN.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:25 pm |
    • John

      You idiot, that's where meteor shower. Moron.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:28 pm |
    • Joey

      I know, it's amazing how stupid science writers are. The errors here are unbelievable! My guess is that they are so stupid because the producer hires somebody's nephew, or probably some hot chick that he met in a bar, to do the science writing, figuring that not enough science-literate people come to Time to get science information anyway. They concentrate their resources on the Kim Kardashian stories.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:31 pm |
      • Joey Too!

        Exactly right Joey.. I give this story a big "Who is John Galt!?"

        August 11, 2011 at 11:49 pm |
      • Erica

        Obviously they would not have hired you for the writing, seeing that you kept using "science" instead of scientific.

        August 12, 2011 at 2:02 am |
      • Timmy

        is meterite evil? my mom says meterite is trick 2 kill us. god is testing us and making us beleive that we come from DNA.

        August 12, 2011 at 2:27 am |
      • Blair

        Timmy, your mom is an idiot.

        August 12, 2011 at 6:30 am |
      • super

        Blair, YOU are the idiot.

        August 12, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
      • Jessica

        super YOU are the idiot

        August 24, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
      • bob

        jessica YOU are the idiot

        September 2, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
      • Panspermia

        Idiot ewe like to bob

        September 9, 2011 at 7:01 am |
      • Timotheos Treciokas

        I agree completely with Blair.
        Timmy, whoever you are, your mum, and you, are obviously complete idiots who should not be worthy of a vote.
        I cannot believe people like you still exist, and are allowed to exist.
        I advise you to stop listening to your close-minded parents and go actually read something.

        September 9, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • Phil in Oregon

      The ( incorrect) headline got my attention. Amino acids and protein are 2 different animals. No one has tried to explain the absolute necessity of polymerase in the reaction, either'

      August 11, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
      • itsybitsyspider

        Your (incorrect) complaint got my attention. Adenine and guanine are nucleotides, not amino acids. Just like DNA is not a protein.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:56 pm |
      • ?????

        Proteins = amino acids
        Learn biology.

        August 12, 2011 at 1:34 am |
    • Awesome Sauce

      tard

      August 11, 2011 at 11:38 pm |
    • hey

      you don't know if he is truly stupid or not tho... this writer is just trying to make his living, if you are truly worried about the intelligence of the writer i believe that you should try to help him rather than leaving an overly negative comment...

      August 11, 2011 at 11:40 pm |
      • Speakafreak22

        If you're being paid to do something, you're expected to do it without error, especially with something like writing a science article. He's subject to ridicule if he gets something wrong. Just because you're making a living off of writing doesn't mean you can make stupid mistakes.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:59 am |
      • JD

        If one gets pay to do something then one needs to do it at the best ability of oneself... not just "I am trying to make a living and plse forgive me if I sound stupid"; especially in journalism... the information will be seen by millions. There is no excuse for mistake in a science report. It's that simple!

        August 12, 2011 at 1:52 am |
    • Arran Webb

      In a few hundred years kids will be reciting the periodic table like they now do "Mary Had A Little Lamb." Science is heading towards dogma and mythology.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:44 pm |
      • stormsun

        Whoa, you mean you see science becoming a religion?

        August 12, 2011 at 1:55 am |
      • SATAN666

        erotus gnimioous fatulus.. YOUR FAMILY WILL FALL ILL WITHIN 72 HOURS AND PERISH WITHIN A FORTNIGHT.
        HAIL SATAN
        HAIL SATAN
        HAIL SATAN
        HAIL SATAN
        HAIL SATAN
        HAIL SATAN
        HAIL SATAN
        HAIL SATAN
        HAIL SATAN

        August 12, 2011 at 2:15 am |
      • Peter Grenader

        the way education is going we'll be lucky if they can recite Mary had a little lamb when they're 30.

        August 12, 2011 at 2:31 am |
      • bobby

        @satan666 your grandma will die of herpes

        August 12, 2011 at 2:32 am |
    • Balls

      sorry. I accidentally the whole thing.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:03 am |
    • guitar

      ok its called a meteor shower dumb shit and the article talks about meteor that fell to earth so....... put one and one together and you get an article talking about meteors having dna in them..... doesn't take that much thinking to know this..... youre and idiot..

      August 12, 2011 at 12:09 am |
      • Waf98

        That's just it, guitar. The photo is NOT a picture of a meteor shower. It's nothing more than a time exposure of the stars.

        August 12, 2011 at 1:31 am |
      • Peter Grenader

        @kidding: You're kidding, right? Tell me I'm too ignorant to see the irony in your posting, please!

        December 24, 2011 at 10:37 am |
    • Gordon Jones

      Proof that evolution exists. End of story.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:12 am |
      • DonG

        LOL

        August 12, 2011 at 12:17 am |
      • Dave

        Not!!.... how can you conclusively state that anything falling from space with anything supports evolution...that's irresponsible thought. The article even states that the samples could have been contaminated on Earth....HELLO!!

        August 12, 2011 at 1:38 am |
      • Chris

        Of course evolution exists. It is fact, despite the tag of "theory". With that said, this finding alone isn't the smoking gun that proves anything, unfortunately.

        August 12, 2011 at 1:49 am |
      • hammertime

        f-in darwin................

        August 12, 2011 at 2:02 am |
      • Herby Sagues

        NO! The article is precisely about how these samles are VERY UNLIKELY to have been contaminated. True scientists don't speak in absolutes (like saying "it is impossible that they were contaminated on earth) so that's as clear an opposite to your statement as you could get. Read the article.
        That said, I concur that while this supports evolution (that is, it is in complete agreement with the theory of evolution and evenclarifies some of its uncertain factors such as the beginning of aminoacids) it doesn't prove it.
        But we don't need complete proof of evolution. There's orders of magnitude more evidence supporting evolution than evidence supporting any other theory, so beleiving in any other theory is not justified by rational thought.

        August 12, 2011 at 2:24 am |
      • Rob

        Seriously, do people still believe in Creationism? I thought we'd moved past the dark ages where people believe the bible is the actual history of the earth...really? To believe that God just snapped his fingers and bam! there we were! is just stupid and an insult to God. Clearly the universe is far more creative and complex!

        August 12, 2011 at 2:26 am |
      • Kidding

        No, this is actually proof that science writers will write anything they are told to write in order to promote an agenda. It is also proof that scientists will IMPLY anything just to push their agenda and keep their funding. So, DNA found in meteorites? No.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:21 am |
      • Kidding

        The "Theory of Evolution" has failed so many tests of it's validity that any other theory would have been abandoned decades ago. But, because so many frightened and strident evolutionists have nothing else to hang there hat on except this rotten and crumbling monument to self delusion, it keeps showing up in the pathetically outdated and inaccurate textbooks in our children's schools. The saddest part is when intelligent children try to make a stand and point out the obvious flaws, they are bullied and silenced by "liberal" educators who are only liberal with those who slavishly parrot everything that is spewed out at them. END OF STORY.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:29 am |
      • stormsun

        Nothing, by itself, is "proof that evolution exists." The compelling reason to accept the scientific theory as the best explanation for biological diversity (careful avoiding the word "believe," which is fraught with emotional overtones) is simply the overwhelming, vast array of evidence the theory takes into account. I will briefly dismiss the most intellectually challenged fundamentalists who claim the Earth is 6,000 years old. Unless you believe your version of God is capricious and deliberately treacherous, it is hard to account for the alleged creator having hidden literally billions of fossils, from microscopic to dinosaur-sized, in the rocks of our planet. Did He want to trick us? Test us? Challenge us to see through the most intricate hoax imaginable, using His divine powers to mislead and then punish us? If this is indeed your belief, I am finished addressing you, because you have excluded reason from your vocabulary. For the rest of the believers, many of whom are intelligent and well-educated, the burden is to see through your programming, because – like me – you were probably indoctrinated from infancy to accept without question the "wisdom" and "truths" of your religious leaders (and your parents, who were brainwashed before you). THIS HURTS TO CONTEMPLATE. I know that only too well. But look at the world around you – how do you account for the billions of people on the Earth who are equally fervent in their belief of Allah, or Scientology (cough, cough), or the Book of Mormon, or the hundreds or thousands of various religions CURRENTLY practiced, not to mention all those that have gone before?

        Evolution is not "belief." It is a theory of the mechanism for the constant change and specialization that takes place continuously in nature via the sternest measure of all: change that is advantageous allows survival; change that is disadvantageous is rewarded with extinction. From microbes to macrobes (like you and I), we see the evidence everywhere in nature. But scientists don't BELIEVE in evolution; is it an explanation, constantly being refined, revised, and modified to reflect what we are learning about the universe around us. Contrast that to religion, which despite having supposedly direct input from the Supreme Creator, did not even know about microbes, so that people could have been taught to wash their hands after defecating – which alone would have spared millions from unpleasant, early death. Surely Jesus would have known about micro-organisms, would he not? Why would he "not bother" to mention it to his followers? He didn't seem to be aware that the world was not flat, as most people of his time believed. Nor that HALF of the world was unknown to the primitive peoples of the Middle East. The Son of God, sent to redeem mankind, ignored all of North and South America, China and indeed all of Asia, as well as Australia, the islands of the Pacific rim, and for that matter, the whole of Europe – which was an unknown "pagan" region at the time.

        You "believe" as you want. I choose to constantly learn and adapt as new knowledge is acquired. We live in the time when knowledge is increasing more rapidly than ever in human history. Yet as always, organized religion is fearful of new knowledge. Why? Have you asked yourself this? It is because it threatens to encourage people to think and reason for themselves, and not be dependent on their "religious leaders" for direction and control. Make no mistake: religion is first and foremost about control in the here and now. Try telling your church leader you have decided you can't afford to tithe any more and see what they say about that.

        August 12, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • Johnny Moscow

      So...who assembled these "scraps" into the actual binary information known as DNA that becomes intelligent processes like protien synthesis and the inner workings of the stem cell? Oh I forgot, that happened by random circumstance in the explosion of the meteor to Earth.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:14 am |
      • Kelly

        Somebody taught you to ask that question and so you do. Here's the answer, if you can handle it.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Creation_of_complex_structures

        August 12, 2011 at 12:40 am |
      • prepharm

        [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teV62zrm2P0&w=640&h=390]

        August 12, 2011 at 12:40 am |
      • Asmadi

        The same person who sits on clouds and hand constructs each and every snowflake. I think you call him God, but for sake of clarity I'll call him Santa Claus.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:47 am |
      • Annatala Wolf

        Abiogenesis does not occur simply by "random circumstance". In any system where protein formation is high, self-replicating proteins will naturally end up dominating the system over time. It's much like natural selection, except on a molecular scale.

        The implication you make that "great odds" are required for abiogenesis is entirely correct. This is probably why we don't see intelligent life forms everywhere we look in the infinite cosmos. It's not cause for alarm at our own existence, however.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:50 am |
      • Pointing out the obvious

        DNA is not binary. There are four compounds that make up DNA.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:57 am |
      • kyle

        The problem anita is there IS NO evidence a high protein situation EVER occurred in the past.

        August 12, 2011 at 1:12 am |
      • Paula_D

        @Kelly: What you offer is an argument; not an answer. Nothing on either side of the science vs. theology fence has been proven or answered here. Science offers a blunt instrument that allows us to measure our physical surroundings with our embarrassingly limited intellect but the scientific community separates itself from the spiritual realm, which I believe is real yet unknowable until after death.

        August 12, 2011 at 1:59 am |
      • Dumb Ideas Come From People with Dumb Brains

        Creationism is so...80 years ago. Didn't make sense then or now, i.e. your assertion there must be a supernatural entity that stirred primordial soup.

        Pick up a science book and try something not so...ignorant.

        August 12, 2011 at 2:31 am |
      • ZombieRitual

        maybe what happens after death is still a mystery to you, but i guess you'll find out then ... you just die ...

        August 12, 2011 at 2:58 am |
      • MonKey Punch

        I rather be wrong and die with nothing next, than, being beguiled by unbelief and die damned to suffer eternal torment.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:42 am |
      • Darwin the Racist

        In the beginning there was nothing. Then it exploded. SCIENCE!!!! :D

        August 12, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
    • Nick Mayer

      Science is the most amazing thing ever! This is the sort of story that made me chose Biology as my major!
      Knowledge is POWER!!!! Science NERDS unite!

      August 12, 2011 at 12:22 am |
      • Mikc Nayer

        Nick...Science Major, REAALLLYYY???!!! Does it include the "knowledge" of the huge difference between DNA and Nucleotides?

        August 12, 2011 at 2:31 am |
      • Mikc Nayer

        I meant to ask, Biology Major*

        August 12, 2011 at 2:36 am |
    • Cp

      I was tricked by the title: DNA found in meteorites. No, it is NOT DNA. It is a bunch of nucleotides. There is such a big difference. DNA means life. Nucleotides means... Well, not much rally. Journalists. So annoying sometimes.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:41 am |
      • Tim L.

        That's exactly what i was thinking...it's not DNA. Very interesting but there is a huge difference between building blocks and DNA. Hard to believe CNN would post the title that way.

        August 12, 2011 at 1:29 am |
      • ME TOO!!

        I totally agree! DNA includes the deoxyribose and phosphate components which are not there (I can only assume based on the article). I've come to expect nothing less from CNN's "science" articles. The tragedy is people take this at face value and don't bother to delve deeper to understand what's really going on. Makes me wonder about some of the other stories on CNN...

        August 12, 2011 at 2:06 am |
      • floris

        That was a pretty glaring error. I'm amazed that the title has stayed up as long as it has. I don't think CNN hires journalists anymore. They just get cheap workers to compile articles from supplied data. If they paid a little more, they could get actual, trained journalists and have a decent reputation.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:11 am |
    • Sydney Australia

      Pretty sure that is a time elapsed photo of a .......ta-da METEOR SHOWER.

      And the story is about ........ta-da METEORS / METEORITES.

      You must have attended an unionized American school.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:44 am |
      • Waf98

        Well, tada, guess what? That is NOT a time lapse photo of a meteor shower! It is a time lapse photo of the stars at night, nothing more. I mean, think about it, dude! If that was a meteor shower, it would be one of biblical proportion. And, how do you explain that all the "tracks" are the same length? And that there is no single origin point? C'mon – surely you learned this in school??

        August 12, 2011 at 1:36 am |
    • Stockholm Sam

      Actually Waf98, I did not take that as a picture of a meteor shower and neither did my partner; we took it as a picture of space, which I think was CNN's intent. Perhaps you are the one not smart enough to get the simplest meaning behind a picture on CNN's front page.

      August 12, 2011 at 1:15 am |
      • Waf98

        Sam, wow. Simply wow. That you cannot make the simple connection between a highly suggestive photo and the accompanying headline is simply stupefying. And that you further defend the photo as nothing more than a picture of space stretches incredulity to the point of suspicion that you are related to the story's author. You and I both know that 99 out of 100 readers will think they're looking at a meteor shower.

        August 12, 2011 at 1:27 am |
    • Matt Sliwiak

      I despise how many commenters are more intelligent than many media writers attempting to reinterpret primary or secondary sources into headlines. Headlines meant to regurgitate science into lay people speak are both are purposely being misrepresented to draw readers and unintentionally due to the authors' negligence, ignorance, etc. I'm not saying science doesn't misconstrue data and extrapolate conclusions, but the majority of scientists do their best to make conclusions supported in data. Yes, data and measurements will always contain error, but...

      The Media must stop compounding error with faulty self extrapolations and misinterpretations based on data that already has minor error and conclusions based on single studies. I believe in the First Amendment, but I believe anything based on science always must be cited with at least a peer reviewed article link... etc.

      August 12, 2011 at 1:31 am |
    • Shane

      It is a photo, it isn't designed to show you the meteorites streaking through the atmosphere. You call them stupid, but you seem to be the one who is too dumb to actually figure out what something is meant to be.

      August 12, 2011 at 1:48 am |
      • waf98

        Well, Shane, if this photo is not supposed to be showing meteors streaking through the atmosphere, why did the editors choose a photo that would make most people think it was showing meteors streaking through the atmosphere?? Come to think of it, did YOU know those weren't meteors??

        August 12, 2011 at 10:54 am |
    • Jrad

      Why are all the writers and editors on here women? What happened to the days that made since like when Peter Jennings was reporting, a man! Cool story though, it's nice to see that the building blocks of life came to Earth from space. Then again emergence is such a strong force that it could happen anywhere in the universe including here on Earth and now apparently on asteroids.

      August 12, 2011 at 1:55 am |
      • Amanda

        Why does it matter if the wrtiers and editors are women or men? What is wrong with you and the way you were raised to think women are incapable of being good writers? I have seen just as many poorly written articles by men as I have by women. Gender, race, etc. should not matter anymore, your qualifications, abilities and finished product should be the sole basis of judgment upon your work. Maybe you should check out the Sports page if you want a mostly-male team of writers. Let those of us with open minds read about science.

        September 10, 2011 at 9:43 am |
    • Omi

      This DNA created a complete Kretin like you. How sad is that? Why don't you do everyone a favor and shoot yourself in the head.

      August 12, 2011 at 2:01 am |
    • McGuffin

      Not to mention that it's NOT DNA they found.

      August 12, 2011 at 2:06 am |
    • barnboy

      Don't think they intended for the photo to illustrate a meteor shower precisely. Just think they wanted to give an impression of the vastness of space. Easy cowboy.

      August 12, 2011 at 2:06 am |
      • waf98

        I can think of a million ways to photographically depict the vastness of space other than using one which will make most people think you're depicting the very thing that you say they didn't want to show. Sorry, your explanation fails the test of logic. I think the editor invested all of two minutes and twelve seconds thumbing through a photo stock collection, saw this one, wasn't smart enough to realize this wasn't a meteor shower, and used it in an attempt to depict a meteor shower. My reason for even bringing it up is not to point out the difference between time lapse star trails and meteorites, but to illustrate how even professional science writers/editors don't understand some of the basic principles of science. And to lay the blame on the sorry state of education these days.

        August 12, 2011 at 11:03 am |
    • someone's cranky

      Do you wait for opportunities to say things like this? What is your objective exactly, would you like the proceeding comments to be all about how smart you are? For the remaining questions to be directed at you about how CNN could have made this article better? Whoever wrote this probably submitted it and an art editor attached the picture later. Little did he know he would he would arouse the wrath of a pretentious little know-it-all who has nothing better to do than to leave snide comments about an out of place picture which did nothing to detract from the article. The art could have been a picture of a random scientist holding a beaker, who cares? The important thing was the title and content. You are obviously one of those people who have no friends in life and believe its because no one is good enough to be your friend but in actuality its jus because you're unpleasant to be around. Newsflash, you are not smarter or better than anyone else in this world, so stop thinking you are.

      August 12, 2011 at 2:10 am |
      • WeareallIgnorant

        Wow, just wow. The spiteful jealousy seeping off your post is really something. Clearly the people that you claim to be "know it all's" understand this article a lot better than you, and I personally appreciate them commenting on the errors made by CNN. The picture should have meaning to what the message in the article is trying to get across. You know, as well as I know, that the picture was supposed to depict a meteor shower - not just a random space picture. This is not the 3rd grade. Imagine that a huge southern California forest fire occurred and CNN wrote about it. Would they throw up a random picture of fire without the burning forest? No. Why? Because most people know what a forest fire looks like and would want to see not just flames but a burning forest on top of the article. This creates sensationalism and that is how they get half their readers in the first place. This leads me to the people who would know that the pseudo meteor shower is actually a time-lapse. This group is minute, probably made up of either scientist of some sort and or intellectuals whom enjoy the topic. If you knew a topic well and became excited for this pseudo breakthrough in evolution, would you not get a tinge upset at how misleading the whole article seems to be? Also, why do you not want to know the real truth of the article? Enjoy living in deep ignorance much? I know i don't. So, yes the picture is wrong; as well as the misleading title - and I thank the intellectuals that study this topic, for they actually taught me something; whereas this article did not. Alas, have some humility to admit that they are right and that you do not know much about the topic at hand. Yes, you are right that not everyone knows everything, but what I really wonder is: how did you come to that conclusion with the comments on here? Just because you do not know much about space - does not mean you are dumb. So, relax; take a breather...and have a nice day. :)

        August 12, 2011 at 3:48 am |
    • KingNerd

      NEEEEEEEERRRRRRRrrrrrrDDDDddddddssssssss....

      August 12, 2011 at 2:41 am |
    • queenbee

      correction: NASA issued an apology today when it was discovered that the large chunks with DNA thought to be meteorites turned out to be burned up pieces of lost luggage, that had been missing from JFK airport since 1993...the mistake was discovered when some of the DNA was matched (via the gene bank) to the old socks, of a Trudy Ringwo who happened to lose all of her luggage at the TWA terminal.....in other news...

      August 12, 2011 at 3:45 am |
  2. Ian

    "DNA discovered in meteorites"

    Wrong.

    DNA has not been discovered in meteorites. Instead, simple and very boring purine and pyrimidine bases have been discovered.

    We have known since the Urey Miller experiment in the 1950s that such molecules could be formed before the emergence of life on primitive Earth, e.g. in the presence of lightning.

    This "discovery" really isn't very interesting at all. The molecules don't even have optical activity. Some months ago there was a similar fuss when glycine (achiral amino acid) was discovered on a comet. Another boring small molecule with no optical activity. Wake me up when they find a meteorite which contains molecules that have optical activity.

    August 11, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
    • Paganguy

      What have you discovered? Ever. Or you can just tear down other's work. Go back under that flat rock.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:30 pm |
      • um

        Paganguy clearly doesn't understand much of anything. Ian is clearly confusing him with pesky "facts" and "knowledge".

        August 12, 2011 at 12:01 am |
    • hurley1234

      Um... they said DNA scraps. Way to twist their words.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:03 am |
    • JLS639

      The headline said "DNA" was discovered in meteorites, although the article quickly made it clear that was not what was found. However, it is usually editors, not story writers, who write the headlines, so I do not blame the writer. When I saw the headline, I figured they just found purines, pyrimidines and racimic mixtures of sugars. If they had found any intact DNA of extraterrestrial origin, this would be a much larger story.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:21 am |
    • Alex

      What does the fact that a molecule is achiral or chiral have to do with its importance in the origins of life? Glycine is an essential amino acid so I don't understand why it's discovery in some extraterrestrial context would be any more "boring" than some amino acid that is chiral.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:55 am |
    • Landon

      I agree. Very misleading title. DNA carries information. The bases themselves do not.

      August 12, 2011 at 1:30 am |
  3. Doc

    Check your references. DNA nucleotides have been identified before. This is not a new discovery unless there's information I’m missing in this article

    August 11, 2011 at 11:17 pm |
    • TS

      >>"Check your references. DNA nucleotides have been identified before. This is not a new discovery unless there's information I’m missing in this article"

      I believe the difference is that they feel they have evidence that the DNA found was not due to contamination from terrestrial sources. The NASA article agrees with you in that DNA has been found before; however, the earlier finds could not be proven to *not* come from terrestrial contamination.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:30 pm |
  4. Bubba

    I found some pebbles. Also known as scraps of Egyptian Pyramids.

    August 11, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
    • humberto

      What a waste, any DNA would have burned off before it hit the ground.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:00 am |
    • humberto

      The article only proves how accurate court DNA tests are .

      August 12, 2011 at 12:05 am |
    • Zeus

      I'm not the smartest man alive, but somebody that speaks normal every day modern English break this article down for me. They came out of nowhere with this theory. How in the hell a rock from out of space produce a human. If this is true we are already in HELL.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:30 am |
      • chrs Hanson

        You are all a bunch of morons, educate yourself and quit being ignorant religious fools.

        August 12, 2011 at 2:24 am |
      • its rad

        I don't like to comment like this, but you sir didn't get past the sixth grade did yuh?.

        August 12, 2011 at 6:23 am |
    • its rad

      Only posting here so people see this. absorb people, lean as much as you can. You can always be learning, whether it be from a meteorite or from someone with different beliefs. Learn from conversations, even if the other person is ignorant and brings little to the table, you can learn how to approach those types of people or learn how to more effectively manage your time. Just listen, learn, and debate keeping an open mind and add to the conversation constructively. Pay attention to details and you will learn something, possibly even from this post hidden between the words, who knows.

      August 12, 2011 at 6:16 am |
    • human101

      You are an idiot and most everyone on this page is an idiot. Nasa isnt going to put forth the effort to publish their theory if no scientific thought was put into it... you honestly think that whether or not the dna was from something in the area or from space wasnt their main concern... And lastly its a theory and no ones trying to claim it as a fact, its just an idea. As for you religious folks open your mind a little and you might learn something.

      August 12, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  5. Bob

    Ha ha ha...God was a rock.

    August 11, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
    • kahn

      AHA, but who created the rock? but then again that would be dust and gas in space but who created that oh but that would be the burning hot stars... but then who created the stars oh wait...that would be the hot gaseous clouds.trillions of light years wide. Still who created that.....etc...etc....you get the point. Its an ancient question and cannot be answered in a succinct ready-made response.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:49 pm |
      • GetReal

        Wow, an intelligent person on this forum. What planet are you from (not this one, I assume).

        August 12, 2011 at 12:14 am |
      • vn

        When we are able to answer why the universe ( dust, gas ,humans etc) exists we have really trimphed !

        August 12, 2011 at 1:02 am |
      • Rescme

        ...and who created God........humans............

        August 12, 2011 at 1:09 am |
  6. mirp2

    Of course, no one wants to consider that some penguin might have waddled by the meteorite and took a leak. That'll leave some DNA, I'll bet.

    August 11, 2011 at 11:15 pm |
    • Tbone

      Urine is sterile, so no it wouldn't leave any DNA.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:30 pm |
      • Chaz

        Sterile, yes – meaning it (normally) contains no bacteria. That does not mean it doesn't contain cells from your bladder mucosa – which contain DNA. So urine does contain DNA. The only more annoying thing than the poor science writing is all the know-it-alls commenting who are actually clueless.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:48 pm |
      • LimitedMind

        Urine in normal specimens may be without bacteria; however, they can contain numerous epithelial or skin cells. Urine may also contain proteins and crystals, white and red blood cells. The point is that analysis of urine can reveal a lot about the state of health of the person or animal that made it.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:58 pm |
      • km6xu

        Me think that Tbone must have missed Jeopardy.

        A: When a man urinates after sexual activity, his urine contains traces of this substance.
        Q: What is _____?

        August 12, 2011 at 12:15 am |
      • Ponst

        Your mother's twat juice?

        August 12, 2011 at 1:39 am |
    • alichachacha

      I assume the scientists conducting this study would've been smart enough not to overlook the possibility of terrestrial life contaminating the asteroids. They would have gathered the asteroids from parts of Antarctica where absolutely no life exists. Penguins live on the coast of Antarctica where they have access to the ocean. They do not wander off very far inland. Certainly not anywhere near the centre of the continent.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:24 am |
  7. Merlin

    Well, now, let's spare no expense attempting to replicate the code from this DNA and create an alien form of life that will potentially consume all human life and take mankind's place on earth. Or perhaps just study it.... (I suspect intelligent alien life forms have placed a warning sign at the edge of our solar system about the hostile, self-destructive life forms on the third planet. Just a suspicion...)

    August 11, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
    • Thomas

      "...and create an alien form of life that will potentially consume all human life and take mankind's place on earth."

      I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. You've been watching too many movies.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
    • Frostiken

      Who's to say alien life isn't self-destructive and dangerous as well?

      Unsure why all the UFO conspiracy nutjobs always imply that aliens visiting earth are some sort of hyper-intelligent space benefactors. Maybe they're retards and they've just been working on space travel for the past 250,000 years and finally got it right by sheer chance?

      August 11, 2011 at 11:21 pm |
      • Zeus

        I guess that means where all stuck in HELL. Everybody thats kissing ass to go to Heaven is not going. I put my soul on it cause the media is crucialfying everybody severely.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:39 am |
    • Andrew

      The article doesn't point this out clearly, but it does give information that implies that these chemicals are not from a biological origin. That's perhaps the most interesting point.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
    • Cyrus

      May be we are the aliens in this world.

      That just blew your mind, didn't I? Duuuddeee...!

      August 11, 2011 at 11:30 pm |
    • Daniel

      And I, for one, welcome our new rock overlords.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:33 pm |
  8. Daniel

    Scientists are wrong!!! They admit they do NOT know how the universe was created and they can't answer sooooooo many questions!! I, however, believe in God and think the universe was created by magic! HA! In your face lame stream scientists!!!!!!!!!

    August 11, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
    • Thomas

      You're obviously a troll, but just in case you aren't: NO ONE KNOWS HOW THE UNIVERSE ORIGINATED. Any idiot can say a being created the universe, but where's the proof? When scientists find answers they have proof backing them up.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:21 pm |
      • Daniel

        You don't agree with me so you are a troll. Excellent argument! Bravo man.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:26 pm |
      • Daniel

        I see you didn't get my sarcasm. It's OK. We agree. :)

        August 11, 2011 at 11:27 pm |
    • Dano973

      Thanks for putting it in Layman's terms... Yeah don't believe those crazy scientists... where would be now without those 'heretics' like Galileo?

      August 11, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
      • Daniel

        Exactly!

        August 11, 2011 at 11:26 pm |
    • Kathy

      @ Daniel I got your sarcasm, funny post. Magic and maybe some fairy dust from Tinker Bell. If anyone says they know how the universe was created they're the creator of the universe. The rest of us are along for the ride. Please keep all Genesis comments to yourself people or go to another site where humor isn't allowed.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:53 am |
  9. mrhapiguy

    seeds

    August 11, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
  10. J

    The title is deceptive. This is par for the course for CNN, of course. It should have said "building blocks of DNA found in meteorites" or something like that. Instead, it leads readers to think that actual DNA strands of extraterrestrial origin have been found; in other words, the title seems to be claiming that we have actually found life from outside our planet. Terrible title. Terrible.

    August 11, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
    • Ian

      Completely agree. Worse than sensationalism, it actually misleads people to wrongly think a potentially groundbreaking discovery has been made.

      Move along everybody. Nothing to see here.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:24 pm |
    • Paul

      I totally agree – thge title is a totally deceptive. I am disappointed in CNN's reporting ... once again.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:28 pm |
      • Richard

        CNN does not report; it propagandizes.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:42 pm |
  11. Rana

    Sounds exactly like the story of "Deception point" by Dan Brown.

    August 11, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
    • Liana

      Except in Deception Point the meteorite they found had full fossilized insects not the building blocks of DNA. Ask a geneticist there's not difference (enter sarcasm).

      August 12, 2011 at 12:17 am |
  12. GDawg

    Ah, the press, the press... always sensationalizing. The science here is a nice story, but the headlines? NO, NO DNA was found, not even a scrap of DNA. Bases, without either ribose or deoxyribose and phosphate linking it all together are NOT DNA... or RNA. The key finding is instead that somewhat more complex chemistry than has been previously observed can indeed occur in interstellar space... as predicted.

    As for all the religious nonsense in the comments... pretty unbelievable!

    August 11, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
    • J

      The article stated that components of DNA were extracted not DNA. Get off your soapbox.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:17 pm |
      • Steve

        Wrong! Read the article title, "DNA discovered in meteorites"

        August 11, 2011 at 11:29 pm |
      • GDawg

        Title: "DNA discovered in meteorites"... typical press sensationalization as I stated. Also as I stated, the science is a nice story. And aside from the title, likely created by an editor, the content as written by apparently either Landau or Foreman, is generally very good. Chill as little J.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:54 pm |
  13. Mike

    And organized religion is chipped away a little bit more. At one time, religious leaders burned people for being witches and hung others for blasphemy. Eventually, logic and science will free us all from the tyranny and manipulation that is religion. We don't need religion to laugh, love, behave properly, grow, learn, prosper, and enjoy the world around us. If we focus less on beliefs and more on behaviors, we may find ourselves in a better, safer, less divisive world.

    August 11, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
    • JessMaster

      I completely understand where you're coming from. You don't need religion to be all of those things but there are religious things you should look into, such as, the bible. I honestly know what you mean because I still feel the same way to this day but you would be surprised.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
      • Name*Porschenuy

        And we all know the bible is just a book of stories written LONG after all the events happened. How did we all get here? Billions of years ago exploding stars spreading their dust and chemicals. Every thing you see and touch today came from an exploded star BILlIONS of year ago. You came from any exploeded star. Who's the moron now! BOOM!

        August 12, 2011 at 4:03 am |
    • aWEBB#2011#

      Science is becoming religion-like. The history of knowledge is the history of the perception of reality. The fundamentally material universe science attempts to describe will at a point in the future read much like the Greeks version of the stars. Black holes, quarks, dark matter, string theory, the big bang (theorized first by a Catholic Priest) will all read a lot like a picture book.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:26 pm |
    • Nochek

      The problem is that humanity doesn't need religion to be happy, or do all that other stuff, but it also doesn't need religion to start world wars, or spread communism under its boots, let children starve, or blow itself up thinking that its right about non-religion based stupid arguments.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:23 am |
    • M-Theory

      I'm guessing that meteors did probably seed primordial earth causing life. So then there is a current way for life to spread throughout the universe. But how effective is this way? It took chance and billions of years to develop higher life forms capable of enduring. Is there a better way? Life, if it as a whole is adept at survival, capable or has any purpose, must continue at all costs.... it must evolve to create a way off its home planet. Planets never last but life must endure. If evolution incorporates long-term survival then 'smartest' thing that could evolve would be organisms that had desire to develop the technological capability to venture and seed other planets. Aka...man and his excitement and wonder of space to build a spaceship or other way of colonizing other plants. Seems like a better way to me than random meteors.....and maybe a natural way that all life on any planet evolves.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:43 am |
    • jesse6975

      I totally agree with what ur saying....... I believe in being a good person and helping others as much as possible. If you do more good than bad you are on the right track no matter what the true out come is

      August 12, 2011 at 2:04 am |
  14. WyattFNEarp

    LOL! Wow. Out of all the planets in the universe.... You think that meteorites on their own course would intersect with this planet after leaving it. The idea they could leave it is ridiculous anyhow. Escape velocity from a planetary mass such as Earth would require much more than a volcano could give..... Then on top of all that you think it (meteorite) did a 180 and came right on back within what? 7000 years... that is what you think right?

    August 11, 2011 at 11:08 pm |
    • Mike

      An adequately powerful meteorite impact could cause crust to be ejected back into space. Just sayin....

      August 11, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
    • Andrew

      Martian meteorites are found on Earth, so meteorites can escape planets. Meteorites blasted from the Earth could orbit the Sun for awhile and then come back down. With that said, the presence of the "analogs" doesn't match terrestrial biological origin. Instead it matches non-living chemical processes.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:20 pm |
  15. Steve Hanson

    The United States should spend far more money researching the building blocks of DNA than any wars. It is a shame our country does not point itself in the correct direction.....

    August 11, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
    • Nelson

      Hmm, what happened to the "agree" button? Thumbs up!

      August 11, 2011 at 11:09 pm |
      • Agreed

        I completely agree, two thumps up!

        August 11, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
      • its rad

        That is true but support your brothers and sisters overseas. they are doing a job . we need to protect ourselves to a point, but there's a lot of stuff to discover and more should be done to support it. wars need an end and learning new things everyday needs to be a priority for society to grow and be happy then there is that discovery that brings unrest and war. Damn, but it happens. We end it as quick as possible and always put our country first, take care of our own, and stop the wasteful spending that our country could for sure use on science, the economy, and the people who absolutely need it at home. I'm not against needed wars but I am for our government looking out for our country first. Hell, maybe they are, what do we know.

        August 12, 2011 at 4:53 am |
    • Mike

      Make it three!

      August 11, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
    • vignesh

      You do realize that research for war has created a lot of scientific discoveries right? The internet was invented by military scientists.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:20 pm |
      • Steve Hanson

        Other than the religious comments your comment is without a doubt the most unintelligent. The military had nothing to do with Transmission Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol both were a union of ideas by computer scientists primary from the United States and England.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:35 pm |
      • Daniel

        By that logic, we definitely need to start blowing up more counties. I can't download porn quite fast enough. Come on eggheads!

        August 11, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
    • Name*Porschenut

      Nope we need to spend our money on wars and tax breaks for the rich! Because that's what Jesus would do. :)

      August 12, 2011 at 4:10 am |
  16. Daniel

    What a horrible, misleading title to an article. Certain nucleobases were found in meteorites, not DNA. Not scraps of DNA, as that implies that they were once a part of a DNA molecule. Nucleobases. Nucleobases were found in the meteorites. Some of which are utilized as components of DNA, but they are NOT DNA.

    August 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • Mike

      In CNN's defense, I don't know what kind of interest they'd get by posting an article entitled "Nucleobases found in Meteorites". Most American's wouldn't get the significance of that.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:17 pm |
    • multiplex

      whatev, dude. we know that whenever A and G get the chance, they link up with T and C, respectively, so it's pretty clear we've got half a helix of DNA here.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
  17. WOT

    That is not new "from dust we come and to dust we shall return", read and think with an open mind!

    August 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
  18. John Negro

    So, God has DNA?

    August 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
    • MikeC

      Yep.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:10 pm |
  19. Tr1Xen

    It's so funny reading some of these comments. Nowhere in this article does the writer mention God or religion even once. Yet, we have a full blown religious debate going!

    August 11, 2011 at 11:01 pm |
    • Nelson

      Agree. Seems religious types have to scorn any scientific advancement. Almost like the middle ages huh. Why does science have to prove or disprove your religion? Do you think scientists truly care about your or any other race, religion, or creeds myths? If that were so, we would just all sit around praying for help instead of finding cures for diseases.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:08 pm |
      • Paul Bishop

        Nelson, this is a very irresponsible statement. Do you personally know many religious types? I've been a Christian for some years, and I've only met one who was against scientific development. My Muslim friends aren't against science either. Just because religious people oppose naturalistic evolution doesn't mean they're against science – they're just against atheistic interpretations of science. Also, please be honest. Many scientists are actually opposed to religion and hope to disprove it with their work. There is no such thing as a totally objective scientist. This facade was torn down long ago by postmodernism.

        August 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
      • stormsun

        Paul Bishop: In my opinion, most scientists do not “hope to disprove (religion) with their work." But they are tired of being criticized for failing to conform to the majority belief system. I will agree with you that there is some antagonism between science and religion, but it primarily begins with believers' insistence that science cannot challenge any tenet of their beliefs. Religion has regarded science as its enemy for as long as there have been scientists – men of learning. Religion rightly sees a challenge in science, because science presents a logical approach to understanding the universe around us based on facts that can be seen, felt, and demonstrated. It invites criticism and refinement of its conclusions. Religion does none of those things. Science teaches people to question, to use logic and reason; religion does not want individuals to exercise their intellect and come to their own conclusions, because this undermines religious leaders' control over followers. There is a reason religious leaders exhort their congregants to be like sheep in a flock. Sheep don’t think. Religion has fought science and reason at virtually every step, and employed violence and fear to stifle progress. Can you honestly deny that? Very simply, science seeks to enlighten, not control; religion seeks to control, not enlighten. Religion, at its core, is not really about the meaning of life, or God, or the afterlife. It is about control in the here and now.

        August 12, 2011 at 7:36 pm |
    • Praise Science

      Yep, people are 'hell bent' or proving the unprovables.. how boring

      August 11, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
  20. Babu G. Ranganathan

    METEORS ORIGINATED FROM EARTH

    The reason why any meteorites have DNA to begin is because meteors in outer space actually originated from our own Earth!

    In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt and rocks containing microbes into outer space which not only could have eventually reached Mars but also ended up traveling in orbit through space that we now know as meteors. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility. "We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars", says scientist and evolutionist Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth" [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12].

    Please read my popular Internet article LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. Just google the title.

    August 11, 2011 at 10:59 pm |
    • Nelson

      We have asteroids and comets that come from the Kuiper belt.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:04 pm |
      • sonic10158

        I wonder if there are many in the Oort Cloud as well

        August 11, 2011 at 11:08 pm |
      • Ari

        i bet there's a lot around Ur anus...

        August 12, 2011 at 12:58 am |
    • Don

      An interesting theory, but there has never been a recorded instance where matter spewed from a volcano on earth's surface achieved the 11.2 km per second necessary to achieve escape velocity. I am not saying it is impossible, but I remain highly skeptical until I see proof that it is possible.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
    • BigRed

      I am impressed. Someone is actually on this blog who has some intelligence. Rare!

      August 11, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
  21. Emm_ehhh

    I am bafled why it isn't obvious where the "Big Bang" came from. Everyone always asks what happened before the big bang, or how did all this come from nothing in the big bang. Simple all the matter and energy tin the universe eventually coalesces back together due to gravity, immense black holes etc, and the resulting concentration of all the matter in the universe eventually combining into one gigantic black hole creates enough enrgey to blast it all back out again, the big bang is cyclical. it has probably happened a billion times, we are just living in one eon of it.

    August 11, 2011 at 10:59 pm |
    • bob

      So how did it happen the FIRST time?

      August 11, 2011 at 11:05 pm |
      • Emm_ehhh

        why did there have to be a first time? we as humans have to assign a begining and end to everything, because we begin and end. That doesn't mean that everything has a begining or an end.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:09 pm |
      • Alex

        why does there have to be a "first" time?

        August 11, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
      • Alex

        emm...you beat me to it lol. anyhow, it's difficult to imagine "nothing" because we are something and it's possible that there was always something. it's not easy to comprehend because "nothing" cannot be visualized without thinking that it is something.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
      • Holly

        Whats kind of awful about the whole "well, what MADE the big bang? Where did all this matter and stuff come from" as a religious retort, is that you can say the exact same thing towards the religious spectrum. Where does god come from? who made god? Was he just sitting there in abyss for millions of years till he got bored and decided to make stuff? So you cannot ask one side without turning the spot light at yourself as well. BOTH are impossible to answer so it's kind of a silly question if you ask me. But just keep in mind you cannot ask people about the beginning of anything. Its almost as pointless like playing the "why" game with a 5 year old.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
      • Daniel

        Sorry dude, you will infinitely be a virgin. You never had a first time.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:39 pm |
    • Frunabulax

      A toast! A glass of beer for Emm_ehhh and myself (and whomever else agrees with his view) and when the glasses "clink" the universe is once again reborn!

      August 11, 2011 at 11:09 pm |
      • ron

        So The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was correct, and we clink our pan galactic gargle blasters in a bar, at the end of the unverse, as it ends, and is reborn!

        August 12, 2011 at 12:35 am |
    • Shane

      I used to have the same hypothesis, but I think its been shown that the universe is speeding up on its expansion rather than slowing down, so that kind of throws that hypothesis back to the drawing board.

      It isn't to say that it isn't true, but we need to find more evidence on what is causing the expansion to increase in speed.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
      • Name*Porschenut

        Your awnser is dark energy. That's what is excellerating the universe and pushing everything apart faster. Matter only makes up about 10-20% of our universe.

        August 12, 2011 at 4:21 am |
      • ChaoticDreams

        The big bang has been largely move to a natural outcome of cyclical M-Theory, so while matter really doesn't fall back on itself, there are big bangs that will repeatedly occur every 1 trillion years or so (if said theory is correct)

        August 16, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • Mike

      When all that matter comes back together, what is it inside? That's the thing that always vexes me. Must be some of that warped space time stuff...

      August 11, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
    • bob

      Nice backpedal. You said, 'I am bafled why it isn't obvious where the "Big Bang" came from"

      So where did it come from? To say that "it's always been" certainly doesnt address that. Please answer your own question and say where the Big Bang came from (whatever that means).

      August 11, 2011 at 11:42 pm |
      • Aezel

        And here we have an uneducated fool who thinks his local-yocal pastor has outsmarted the greatest minds on earth. "Errr herp derp, where did the VERY first one come from, bet yuh never thunk uh that huh! Herp Derp!"

        August 11, 2011 at 11:57 pm |
    • cricket

      Space and all the matter in it appears to be expanding without loss of velocity. This will continue. Gravitational forces or other conditions will not overcome, slow, or reverse that expansion. The 'big bang' happened once.

      August 12, 2011 at 3:01 am |
    • Paul Bishop

      This collapse and spread theory has been discredited in recent years. Not even Richard Dawkins accepts it anymore.

      But even apart from that, you still have the problem of origins and eternality. Both naturalists and theists must surrender to mystery in the end – where did God come from? "He always existed, we don't know how." Where did all the matter come from? "It just was, we don't know how." But the question is, which mystery is more logical to surrender to. For me, the appearance of design and purposefulness in everything in the cosmos argues for an origin based in a supernatural designer. But alas, naturalists have a much harder time explaining themselves than Supernaturalists anyway.

      August 12, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
      • stormsun

        "Not even Richard Dawkins accepts it (the big bang theory) anymore." First, thank you for showing such respect for the opinion of one of science's great champions. Have you actually READ anything by gentleman? For anyone else suffering through these posts, whether believer or nonbeliever, I highly recommend "The God Delusion," by the aforementioned Richard Dawkins. He sums up many of the arguments for and against belief in a supernatural god, and is eloquent in expressing his thoughts as to the fallacies of religion. If you are a religionist, you would do well to know the arguments, and there can be no better compendium of the arguments for and against than Dawkins'.

        To the argument in question, you cite (and he would be amused if not flattered, I think) Dawkins' opinion on the subject. I believe he would be the first to tell you that astrophysics is not his field. He is an eminent figure in the field of evolutionary biology, famed for his 1975 work, "The Selfish Gene," and for various other books intended for the mainstream audience. Much like Carl Sagan, he has a way with words that makes difficult concepts accessible.

        What Dawkins actually said – and this typifies the open-minded approach of scientists – was: "...recent evidence is starting to steer us away from the big crunch model. It now looks as though our own universe is destined to expand for ever." HOWEVER, in the next paragraph, he describes "a tantalizingly Darwinian variant on the multiverse theory, including both serial and parallel elements." This theory (suggested by physicist Lee Smolin) postulates the existence of multiple universes in which "parent" universes give rise to "daughter" universes, perhaps manifested by the still mysterious nature of black holes.

        Dawkins did not endorse or pass judgment on this theory, nor state his "belief" about the the big bang theory other than to say one theory seemed to be more favored at the moment. I say again, HE IS NOT A PHYSICIST. He would be the last person to tell you his ideas on physics are the last word. That lack of expertise, it should be noted, would certainly not dissuade ANY preacher in America from pontificating (pun intended) on the subject of the origin and disposition of the universe, a subject upon which all of their knowledge is based on the centuries-old writings of men they did not know, reporting the oral stories of men the writers didn't know, recounting their revelations, visions, and epiphanies.

        You are free, as you should be, to believe anything you like, certainly including a supernatural designer as you clearly proclaim. But this statement: "...alas, naturalists have a much harder time explaining themselves than Supernaturalists anyway," is patently false. Naturalists such as Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and countless others have explained themselves time and again, thoughtfully, clearly, and compellingly. With all due respect you, sir, have done none of these things.

        August 12, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
      • its rad

        Stormsun, thank you. that was enjoyable. I am going to read the books you referenced. they sound very interesting.

        August 13, 2011 at 2:49 am |
  22. Dan

    Funny how an article about space and meteorites turns into a childish banter about politics among the ignorant. It is obvious that they do not see the importance of a discovery as described above. Consider all of the facts and observations before coming to a conclusion or childish comments.

    August 11, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
    • its rad

      Agreed! Seriously, we all have are own opinion and beliefs on our origins. everyone thinks that we know about our beginning, but in fact we actually don't really know anything at all. If something falls from the sky and we find new things out and come up with new ideas and we go about enjoying life as much as possible, its cool stuff. You just never know when you will read something truly incredible on your phone wherever you are in that moment and it will be some of the most fascinating unimaginable facts that make you question and want more. We are a grain of sand in the bucket. enjoy it and move on.

      August 12, 2011 at 4:29 am |
  23. Freedom Luchador

    i bet you 259k (My 401k) that you can't make god appear!

    August 11, 2011 at 10:55 pm |
    • Joe

      I'll bet your 401k isn't worth 259k anymore.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
  24. Don

    It is important for the military industrial complex to demonstrate the possibility of alien life so if we run out of terrestrial enemies, big brother will still have to spend money defending us against the soon to be immanent alien threat. :D

    August 11, 2011 at 10:55 pm |
    • Don

      Oops. Should read imminent. I was being a little punny. :D

      August 11, 2011 at 10:59 pm |
  25. asche

    i keep wondering why people are so shocked to find stuff that comes from "space" is just like the stuff on earth, because well, we're IN space you morons! do you think the earth formed in some magical bubble detached the entire UNIVERSE around it? i mean, when you swim in a pool are you shocked when you find water on the other side of the pool? "don't be silly. the only water here is the water in contact with my skin." this is the conceptual and perhaps intellectual equivalent to when everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around it.

    August 11, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
    • louis

      they believe that life was formed by a magical being who wished it into existance.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:57 pm |
    • 112321

      Yes there are many many many "morons" out there

      August 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
    • Andrew

      It comes down to probabilities. If DNA nucleotides can be made by chemical processes in meteorities, then life in other star systems is more likely if we can find planets with the right conditions. Given the number of exoplanets that Kepler, CoRoT, and ground-based observations are finding, and the serious possibilities of liquid water (the best guess at "the right conditions") within moons of Jupiter and Saturn, this DNA discovery could be very significant.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:10 pm |
  26. DJ

    As we get closer to the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, where there is a slight chance our solar system came from...Where we originated from... there may be all types of new ancient findings falling from the sky; Things we may still know about if those libraries in Alexandria werent repeatedly attacked and destroyed between 48 AD and about 300 AD, limiting us to 6000 years of written human history.

    August 11, 2011 at 10:53 pm |
    • planethou

      That would be about right then, because many Baptists believe the Earth is right at 6000 years old.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
  27. Big Bang = Retardation

    The logical problem with the Athiest segment of the population is failing to address the mechanism source of the initial creation of matter.

    Scientists can only offer CONJECTURE about the origin of the universe, falling back to the traditional 'Big Bang' theory. So matter expanded out like in a sphere-like wave, filling the void of the universe, so science tells you.

    Hogwash..on two points:

    1. Still fails to explain the HOW and WHY matter existed in the first place to expand from.

    2. Fails to explain WHY an "empty void" could exist for matter to expand into.

    August 11, 2011 at 10:53 pm |
    • science

      You might enjoy actually studying cosmology and physics. Then you might have worthwhile arguments to put forth (not the same old recycled creationist nonsense).

      August 11, 2011 at 11:01 pm |
      • Kinoeye

        Yes. Study cosmology. And then you will discover that Lemaître was the father of the Big Bang theory. And who was Lemaître? An astronomer, a professor of physics... oh, and a priest. I'm getting very tired of the cliche portrayal of religious people and the idea that religion equals stupidity. The argument holds no merit, and it only exposes narrow minds unwilling to consider every possibility, which is where all scientific inquiry begins.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:15 pm |
    • jimmymax

      Well at least they are thinking about that and attempting to explain it. If your "god" created everything, then what created it? As usual, another DUMB religious person. Hardly a coincidence.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
    • moo

      What's your excuse, a magical wizard appeared out of nowhere, created himself and created all of this in seven days?

      August 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
      • Religious

        Moo,

        Being one who Believe that believes in "intelligent Design" (GOD), I find your comments to be quite snide and rude. Just because you do not believe in it, there is still no reason to be mean about it. There are still too many holes in the scientific explanation as to how we became who we are. The earth is just too perfect for it to have created itself. It's distance from the moon and sun, it's ability to sustain life and still no one can explain why apes are still not evolving and walking out of the jungle, if not every day, at least every once in a blue moon. While Religion may not be perfect in your opinion, neither is science.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
      • BigRed

        I find RELIGIOUS remark that in nature there are things too perfect to have been created by anything other then God. First there is a thing called natural selection, second there are billions of years in which life on Earth developed. Third over those billions of years organisms perfected themselves either in quick time or slowly in order to adapt to their environment. Time and natural selection weeded (for lack of a better word) out those that were unable to adapt and we are left with those items that religionists believe could only be made by God in seven days.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:25 pm |
    • BigRed

      It is always amazing to see someone of faith defending their complete disdain for science. Were it left up to these people we would still be worrying about characters like Cotton Mather wanting to hang our wives because of imaginary devils and demons.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
    • rusty shackleford

      Just because it fails to explain it doesnt mean that it is wrong. Ok if you are so smart and god is real, than what created god or did he just create him self?

      August 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • MikeC

      Yeah, I mean God's magical powers explain it all so well, who needs science anyway!!???

      August 11, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
    • Emm_ehhh

      "Scientists can only offer CONJECTURE about the origin of the universe" . and what can religious beleivers offer that is any better? make believe? I would accept a scientific conjecture over a religion based one any day. There was a day when many religions beleived that thunderstorms, tornadoes, or any bad event was caused by a god. Much of that is now dismissed and explainable,. As science could explain the world around us, the religions had to adapt to change what they used to beleive. Thats the problem with a faith based science, it s only purpose is to explain the unknown by saying it is all controlled by god, rather that taking the more rational approach of the scientific method. Is all science right the first time? No. The entire idea is to continue to learn and understand. Where the whole of religions has been backpeddaling and "re-interpreting" the bible, every time something gets contradicted.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
      • its rad

        This is funny, but I would probably really enjoy debating things with you. You consider and interpret what your complete point is before speaking. you use the knowledge you have earned throughout life, from childhood to what you have learned to this point, to answer the remarks of other people before they are said. I also enjoy the way you speak to people who will disagree, acknowledging all that people believe but resorting to logic and what we have learned throughout life. (I go in a different path here) And yes anyone else, it is logic and looking at the facts that makes us question what we thought we knew. You will be happier keeping an open mind to the possibility of something changing your own little world. go out and learn as much as possible. We don't know much about our origins in the big picture, but hey you never know what you may know tomorrow night right?, that could make you question yourself.

        August 12, 2011 at 5:45 am |
    • Joe

      Proof that there is no God: Could God make a stone so heavy that He couldn't lift it? If you say yes, then there's something God can't do – lift the stone. Thus He is not omniscent/all powerful so by definition cannot be God. If you say no then then there's something God can't do – make the stone. Thus He is not omniscent/all powerful so by definition cannot be God. Either way, no God. Sorry.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:09 pm |
      • J

        Please shut up.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
      • Joe

        Truth hurts, eh?

        August 11, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
      • Thoth

        Joe:

        This is a commonly used paradox, but it unfortunately doesn't really prove anything. For good or for ill, religion transcends logic.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:28 pm |
      • Mick

        I can do something that God can't: I can prove that I exist.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:28 pm |
    • bananaspy

      There was never an original source listed for any of the possible gods either, so that argument goes two ways. Why would you expect that in a universe where we are formed over billions of years that within a few thousand years we would actually figure out exactly how and why everything exists? What even gives you the impression that this is information you're supposed to know? The universe owes you nothing, it is what it is.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
    • stop side stepping

      Four responses, each side stepping.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:13 pm |
    • @MrSmith2Wash

      Newsflash, "We don't know yet" ≠ "God did it." I'm just waiting for Bill O'Reilly's "But who sent the meteorites???" segment.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:15 pm |
    • Shawn

      If the only explanation for how something began is that a higher being created it, then who created the higher being? Your argument is 100% fallible, and contradicts itself. If matter can only exist if it were created, then where is your explanation for who created God? Since matter cannot simply exist, neither can God.

      But you know what the difference between matter and God is? Matter is proven. God is not.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
      • leecherius

        neither pro or con , but neither is radio , that why it's classified as radio theory

        August 11, 2011 at 11:48 pm |
    • TheSharkMan

      The "Big Bang" is only a part of the equation. There is a lot more to the story. Perhaps too much to comprehend for the small minded.

      If you are going to dispute something do your homework first before you go and post some; as you say... retardation.

      If you really understood the concept you would realize how stupid you comment is.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
    • MOCaseA

      Right... You are sadly uninformed and a narrow thinker if you think you can say that "Where did we come from if there was nothing to come for or into into in the first place!"

      I'll try to answer your two points without being too brutal, and I'll use small words you might understand.

      1) Matter is energy. Just condensed into a solid state. The equation e=mc2 (E equals M C squared) is the most well known representation of the relationship between mass (matter) and energy. The Big Bank Hypothesis states that before the universe there was nothing but a massive, for lack of a better way to put it, black hole. We're talking extra-super-duper supermassive. There is no way that the common human can even comprehend how massive it was, you'd have to be a quantum physicist to even come close to understanding the sizes we're talking about here. The theory goes something along the lines that the original black hole basically exploded, and what was released was not quite matter as we know it, but instead sub-atomic particles that, due to the explosion, were crammed together and started forming the most base atom known... Hydrogen. As the hydrogen started to draw together it formed massive stars. Millions of times larger than our sun, these stars were very short lived before they blew apart, but in the process fusion occurred and heavier elements were formed; Helium, carbon, iron, etc. From these exploding suns were also formed the first progenitors of the galaxies, the first black holes. Matter was trapped in the gravitational fields of these black holes, forming proto-galaxies (due to distances, the farther out we view, the farther back in time we see, and we can still find some of these proto-galaxies today!). Repeat the process of forming stars for a few billion years and now the heavier elements get heavier. They start forming the initial planetoids. Massive planets, like the ones found in orbit around other stars create a different form of fusion in their core, and the extra heavier elements form. Through the process of destruction and recreation eventually you get to where we are today, with a diversity of elements that interact in ways we can barely begin to understand. Thus life.

      2) There wasn't a "void" for everything to spread out into. Before the Big Bang there was quite literally nothing. Because time itself did not exist. As for what the universe is "expanding into" it is sub-space. A non-time or space related area that quite frankly is so far beyond my comprehension that I can't even begin to try to describe it. Suffice it to say though, if the universe continually expands, it will still never reach the edge of sub-space because there is no edge.

      Any of this could be easily researched if you were to but take a few moments of time to do the proper research. I'd suggest starting with the research done by Galileo, so you can gain an understanding of how our modern universe works, and then move up to more recent scientists like Einstein and Hawkings.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
    • Cliff

      And the proof or evidence that there is a god and it created the universe is where again? At least those who believe in the big bang understand that it is a theory.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
    • Aezel

      So your argument is: "I'm too stupid to understand the complex physics of how the universe formed so it must not be true!"

      I agree with the first part of your argument at least: "I'm too stupid..."

      August 12, 2011 at 12:00 am |
  28. Ted

    Elvis was an Alien.

    August 11, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
    • jimmymax

      His sideburns were actually separate symbiotic organisms attached to his face.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
    • 112321

      And still is

      August 11, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
  29. samsam

    God's attempt to start afresh. Humanity is a failure in his eyes, all we've managed to do it destroy this beautiful planet.

    August 11, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
    • louis

      destroy the planet? you give humans too much credit. we might make it uninhabitable for us... but the planet will continue spinning and a new dominant species will form. it's the circle of life. hakuna matata

      August 11, 2011 at 10:55 pm |
      • samsam

        Touche my friend. I suppose what I meant is he's trying to find a replacement BEFORE we completely destroy the planet.The cycle of life extends beyond Earth alone. Sad but true. Perhaps we're just overdue for extinction.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
  30. blake

    I continue to be amazed at the leaps of faith that many "scientists" take to prop up one of their unstated, but core underlying premises - there is no God. Everything in the physical universe is the product of time and chance. Any consistent and objective scientist recognizes the utter foolishness of this core premise. Time and chance leads to increasing disorder, not increasing order and complexity.

    August 11, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
    • BigRed

      I see nowhere in the article that science is challenging your faith. Rather you are challenging science in the same way that the church challenged Galileo.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
    • swaf

      as wee all know and see that everything degrades over time, even our own dna/organic makeup degrade over time as we replicate our dna doesnt become better but weakens and develops "flaws"

      August 11, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
    • RusTnuts

      "minimal chance of contamination" Thats a bit like I almost found a cure for cancer. NASA will stoop to anything to keep the funding coming.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
    • science

      Yeah, that's what you'd think, until you actually learn how science works.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
    • Nelson

      Faith is something not based on anything replicable. Science is based on theory than can and has been replicated. Your comment on whether this proves or disproves any god or gods is off the point.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:59 pm |
    • C.S.

      That is your own "leap of faith". You have no idea whether order or disorder comes from time and chance and whether it is consistant. The "utter foolishness" is in your own belief and that others should believe the same as you, that someone floating in the clouds is pulling the strings for everyone and everything and has a master plan. That, my friend, is the ultimate "leap of faith!"

      August 11, 2011 at 11:00 pm |
    • MikeMike

      Wait a minute....you mean to tell me you don't belive millions of years ago there was a BIG explosion which led to the formation of the earth and life as we know it? You know....the same explosion that position the earth the right amount of distance from the sun and the moon for life to prosper.....etc....

      August 11, 2011 at 11:04 pm |
    • J

      A amateur proof of God's existence? Professional philosophers through the ages have tried and failed. The article makes no allusion to God whatsoever.If you choose to believe in the tooth fairy, that's your delusionary choice.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:24 pm |
    • J

      Reilgious dolts like you have impeded science since Galileo and before. Your creationalist or Grand Designer or whatever philosophical/religious bandwagon you are riding on ran off the road a thousand years ago in the developed world.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:34 pm |
    • MOCaseA

      "I continue to be amazed at the leaps of faith that many "scientists" take to prop up one of their unstated, but core underlying premises – there is no God." – It is also amazing how many leaps and blind eyes are turned to science simply based on the premise that they are trying to disprove faith. Faithful people constantly try to state that science is "making up facts" despite years, decades, and (especially in this instance) sometimes even centuries of observations. I am a faithful person myself, however I do NOT believe in intelligent design. I DO believe that the creatures of this planet have the ability to create our own Gods and Goddesses through Faith and belief.

      "Everything in the physical universe is the product of time and chance. Any consistent and objective scientist recognizes the utter foolishness of this core premise. Time and chance leads to increasing disorder, not increasing order and complexity." – You are taking a single, limited premise and expanding it to encompass something much more dynamic and relational than even the best scientists of the day can comprehend. Everything is not the product of time and chance, but action and reaction. Mass, Gravity, magnetism, and interactions that we are just now beginning to scratch the surface of all play roles in the order of the universe. If anything, in the natural Universe time and "chance" leads to further ordering and complexity simply do to the easy to understand, but hard to comprehend, facts of relational gravity. In the very beginning of the universe there was nothing but simplicity and Chaos. The only things around were hydrogen and massive amounts of unconstrained energy. Through time and basic physics what we see now was formed. Order out of chaos, complexity out of simplicity.

      Eventually chaos will return as things in the universe begin to degrade, however that time is still a long time away, and life will have plenty of time to learn all the secrets of the universe.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:45 pm |
    • ?????

      Everything naturally descends to a state of disorder. That's why spontaneous reactions happen. To decrease entropy, energy is needed. It's like cleaning your room, or tending to your yard. If you don't take energy to keep it tidy, it will become messy. I don't see how your point is valid.

      August 12, 2011 at 1:51 am |
      • ?????

        ....
        I jumped to conclusions. I see your point. "If everything naturally goes to chaos, then how did organisms (orderly, functional, etc.) come to be?"
        It is true that for a reaction, or a state, to be favorable, it most likely has a increase in entropy. However, for many compounds and atoms to become -stable-, they must combine with other compounds and molecules to do so (halogens for example.). The same applies to organic molecules.

        August 12, 2011 at 2:00 am |
  31. Rickg

    Very interesting!

    August 11, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
  32. Thatchemistguy

    In all honesty I think these scientists might be slightly delusional those compounds are not exactly heat stable.(500-600C will char them and oxidize them to CO2 NO2 and H2O especially in an ozone oxygen rich atmosphere).for them to survive entry through the atmosphere is a little beyond far-fetched..

    August 11, 2011 at 10:06 pm |
    • Mark C

      As people below much smarter than you (not difficult) have pointed out, only the surface of a meteorite is heated.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
      • Mike Varney

        And you, Mark C, can only quote those smarter people, since you seem unable to think for yourself.
        LOL!

        August 11, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
      • @markc

        The only thing that's heating here is your small therefore easily to wash brain.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
      • louis

        @Mark Varney – wow... that was the equivilant of a child saying, "I know you are, but what am I"

        August 11, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
      • swaf

        heat a rock on the surface and Im pretty sure the inside gets hot too, its called heat transfer, unless you suggest that there is some kind of insulator inside the rock?

        August 11, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
      • jimmymax

        @sawf How do you think those guys REALLY walk on beds of heated rock? The rocks are of volcanic origin and are full of air bubbles, so that even the intense heat below doesn't transfer quickly enough to the surface they are walking on. There are explanations for almost everything if you look hard enough.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:08 pm |
      • Thatchemistguy

        I definitely thought of that, but there still has to be heat transfer and if there isnt much and you have a solid mass that doesnt transfer much heat how did the molecules get there in the first place meteorites are not composed mostly of nitrogenous and carbon bearing material. If some how the DNA got stuck in the rock iron nickel etc matrix of the meteorite...then it could not very feasibly have helped with the building block of life here on earth because it would be stuck in the rock... and upon impact if you suggest the meteorite fragmented upon impact it more than likely would have created so much heat that the molecules would have oxidized. This doesnt add up.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:12 am |
    • louis

      these guys are rocket scientist... now go back to mopping the floors!

      August 11, 2011 at 10:48 pm |
    • MoMo

      Are you really going to argue with people, whom IQ are in a different dimension from yours??

      August 11, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
  33. probability

    'With minimal chance for contamination'? I wonder which is greater, probability for contamination or probability for DNA sequences coming together...

    August 11, 2011 at 10:02 pm |
    • Mark C

      Either one is substantially higher than the chance you'll move out of your mother's basement before you turn 40.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:11 pm |
      • Zach

        Real mature Mark. What was the need for that comment?

        August 11, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
      • Jonathan

        Ahahaha. ZING!

        August 11, 2011 at 10:45 pm |
      • Sam

        Funny reply, yet very assholish of you.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
      • louis

        bazinga!!!!

        August 11, 2011 at 10:52 pm |
      • @markc

        And also substantially higher than the chance you'll EVER move out of your mother's basement.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:53 pm |
      • jimmymax

        Hey, he may even inherit the 2-bedroom bungalow in an undesirable neighborhood. But who will microwave his Pizza Pockets?

        August 11, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
      • Ray

        Ha ha! Thanks, Mark.

        August 12, 2011 at 8:47 am |
    • Andrew

      The "analogs" are particularly interesting and important. These molecules are "chiral" meaning that they rotate polarized light either right or left. Chemical processes produce right-rotating and left-rotating versions of these molecules in equal quantities. Earth-based biological processes do not. For instance, Earth-based biological processes produce and use only right-rotating sugars and left-rotating amino acids. The presense of both right-rotating and left-rotating versions indicates these molecules weren't produced by Earth-based biological processes.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:59 pm |
  34. Lest you forget...

    I found DNA on my bedsheets...is that a news story?

    August 11, 2011 at 10:01 pm |
    • Ari

      So who was your wife messing with, the UPS guy?

      August 12, 2011 at 12:52 am |
  35. Adam

    Ignorant Americans. One there is God. And Islam is the true religion. If you blow yourself up or kill anyone, you will not get 40 or 1000 virgins. There is no such thing in the Koran. However, have you ever thought why these so called Muslims believe in God so much that they are willing to die to go to the other side. That proves there is something in the Koran that shows that God is truly there. Learn Arabic and read the Koran in Arabic and you will understand. Jesus is not the son. But Jesus is alive and well in heaven and will return. I hope soon than later. I ready to leave.

    August 11, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
    • stormsun

      So if people are willing to die for something, it must be true... Hmm, I don't think there is much point in debating anything with you, but thank you for demonstrating the truly mind-numbing effects of religion for us.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
    • Mark C

      Don't let the door hit you on the @ss on your way out. Just try not to kill any kids when you off yourself, like so many of your co-religionists like to do.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:08 pm |
    • Cliff

      I have a copy of the koran... I use it as toilet paper though. Before that I used toilet paper that had cartoons of mohamed on it. I smeared his beard. Is that ignorant enough for you? You who believes it's ok to blow people up in the name of your god?

      August 11, 2011 at 10:15 pm |
      • CommonSense

        Don't feed the trolls

        August 11, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • Sam

      This is an article about DNA found on meteorites. I didn't read anything involving religion. So, let me pose an important question: why?

      August 11, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
    • Ahmed

      Well said Adam.
      One thing we know from Quran that human beings will live and die on earth. No chances of life in other planets.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:57 pm |
    • Marco

      This is your argument, Adam:
      1.Muslims believe in God so much
      2. They're willing to die because of the belief of God
      3. Therefore, God is truly there.

      I can state a similar argument:
      1. People believe in flying pigs so much.
      2. People are willing to die because of the belief in flying pigs.
      3. Therefore, flying pigs truly exist.

      Doesn't make much sense, does it? Re-evaluate your weak argument.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:57 pm |
    • BigRed

      Religious and racial bigotry are at odd with the basic intent of this story which is scientific and focuses on the pure exploration of the natural universe. Hearing your base banter sullies the atmosphere with the stench of your ignorance.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:00 pm |
    • Noer

      Christians were also willing to die in the name of their God. Crusades anyone? They were also willing to torture other for different religious ideals and a fear that ‘evils’ were taking over. The Spanish Inquisition? Islam is still a young religion going thru the growing pains that other religions have gone thru. Read your history before spouting your half informed opinions .

      August 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
  36. Aaron

    I've often compared watching debates between theists and atheists as like watching a cartoon episode of the Roadrunner. The trouble for the atheists is, they are stuck playing the part of Wile E Coyote and the theists get to play the Roadrunner.

    You see, in the cartoon, the central gag is that the laws of physics apply to the coyote, but not to the Roadrunner. The Roadrunner can step off a cliff, stand in midair, taunt the coyote, and then race across to the other side. If the coyote tries it, the laws of physics kick in and he's met with a long whistling fall and a dramatic splat at the bottom of the canyon.

    So it is with theists and atheists. Theists live in their imaginations and have no respect of logic or the laws of the physical laws of the universe. The laws of physics are more like conveniences to them. When it servers their purpose they will quote them, but the minute they contradict what they believe, they happily toss logic and reason out the window. If the atheist raises a logical contradiction, or points out an impossibility according to the laws of physics, the theists shrugs their shoulders and says, "it's a miracle, god can do anything". They are not bound by the laws of physics within their own minds and imaginations and they've taken that to believe that neither is the rest of the universe.

    There's no arguing with that. You can't have a logical debate with someone who has no respect for logic. Just when you think you have them pinned down and there's no logical way out of it, much like the Roadrunner, they toss logic and the laws of physics to the wind and ignore everything you said.

    You can't have a debate if both sides can't agree to the ground rules. Theists imagine anything is possible simply because they have an imagination that can dream up anything they want. Atheists realize that isn't the case. But in most cases atheists haven't realized this fundamental flaw. They keep thinking that if they only try hard enough, if they only go back to the drawing board one more time, that they can design the perfect logical argument which the Roadrunner... I mean, theists... cannot escape.

    August 11, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
    • Cliff

      "I like the way you talk"

      August 11, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
    • Haapy

      Really well said. Bravo to logical thought.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • CedarTree

      Aaron - your view is well presented. Unfortunately, it's wrong. It is atheism and classical darwinism that is illogical. Most objective logicians would conclude that, all things being equal, if something has extreme complexity (like the human eye, or the pressure regulators in a giraffe's neck, or the flagellum of bacteria), it was designed. Especially if its complexity is FAR greater than the complexity of something that minds (us) can create ourselves. And especially if certain biological features would kill the animal unless another balancing feature just "happened" to evolve at the same time. If a South American tribe discovered a Macbook and declared it was the gods' doing, you would say "Silly - somebody designed that." And yet, when I point at molecular complexity and say "Someone designed this.", you say "Random chance made this." God is a god of reason and order. He does call us to exercise faith, but it is not blind faith. The very existence of the universe is simply UNEXPLAINABLE by any Scientific theory - the most modern philosopher can't get around it. And in fact, the theory that "Only what Science can ultimately explain is valid" is a theory that can't itself ever be proven.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:54 pm |
      • louis

        and.... you just proved his point. ROFLMAO!

        August 11, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
      • Daniel

        Try, for a second, to realize that even if you tried to persuade the idea of intelligent design, it does not logically follow anything else you are implying. It does not imply the creator is good, cares that we exist, intended for us to exist, or cares at all what kind of hat we wear. Roadrunner indeed.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:10 pm |
      • BigRed

        Atheism is not a religion and has never caused a war. Science is objective and is substantiated by measurement and mathematics. Science uses observation and experimentation in order to measure, analyse, and replicate outcomes. Religion is simply faith and involves the acceptance of the presence of God in some or all aspects of daily and spiritual life. It cannot be measured, nor replicated, nor can it proven. To accept the word of protestant and catholic churches regarding science is to accept fairy tales of reality that once again cannot be measured. The church once threatened to burn Galileo at the stake for believing in Copernican theories. In the Americas Protestant ministers excommunicated church members who disagreed that ducks didn't hibernate under mudflats during the winter. Faith is Faith, and Science is Science and need to keep out of each others business.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
      • Your Glaring Ignorance

        Funny how you bring up the giraffe neck and fail to mention its larynx nerve that runs from the brain all the way down past the heart, then back up to the head (a remnant from when primitive animals had linear bodies). If the giraffe was "designed" as you suggest, then the designer must have been drunk.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:21 pm |
      • Aezel

        And almost as if on cue, CetarTree jumps in with a blazing example of creationist stupidity. Bravo.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:11 am |
    • aj

      if they allowed sigs here, this would be my sig

      August 11, 2011 at 10:55 pm |
    • Loulou14

      Very well said.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
    • Daniel

      Well said. I concur. The compelling reason to continue to have the debate is that the roadrunners continue to push their beliefs on the world and holds back society's progress (stem cell research, equality for homosexuals, planned parenthood funding, etc, etc). If the roadrunner would just keep to themselves and realize they aren't the only ones here, perhaps we can stop blowing each other up.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
    • Austin

      I here by nominate you for the sensible award.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
    • Didi

      Thanks for the excellent analogy. I'm going to use that with my kids.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:04 pm |
    • Jack

      The roadrunner can fly, even if for short periods, the coyote can't. That's the difference.
      This is a cartoon pal, you know, where they hit guys over the head with anvils, or blow them to smithereens, and they're still alive. In reality though, where space and time are relative, the properties and elements are present to allow for the roadrunner to perform these antics.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:06 pm |
    • Praise Science

      All theists in reality still die just as many times an atheists. Your metaphor is flawed and cartoons are a terrible metaphor to employ to begin with.

      Why? Because a Theist doesn't float up as a charming ghost after death with a sign saying 'Whoops'

      August 11, 2011 at 11:09 pm |
      • Daniel

        Instead they crap themselves, just like everyone else.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:11 pm |
    • Aaron

      It never fails. lol. That's why I don't debate theists anymore. I could rattle off all kinds of objections at CedarTree, but it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. CedarTree is off in imagination land where anything is possible. If I asked CedarTree why man needs an even more complex creator, but that complex creator doesn't need an even more complex creator to create it, he or she would simply dismiss it. Logic and reason is a convenience for CedarTree. Once it poses a problem for them, they scrub it. Logic need not apply anymore. We could talk about the anatomy of a giraffe, but again, CedarTree would drone on about irreducible complexity and I would get nowhere. I would be the foolish Wile E. Coyote chasing after something I could never catch because the rules of the debate are slanted.

      August 12, 2011 at 12:07 am |
    • dg

      Atheists often can be as dogmatic as theists. Secular humanism appears to be one of the more intelligent forms of philosophical theories.

      August 12, 2011 at 1:56 am |
  37. JB

    Well, I guess all this means NASA deserves a bigger cut of the budget. Too bad they don't take up financial engineering and fund themselves...

    August 11, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
    • stormsun

      If NASA could have retained patents and rights on all the "stuff" that was discovered just through the period including the Apollo program, they would have all the money they need for just about any projects they wanted.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
  38. Sean

    everyone is throwing in their 2 cents about all this "god" stuff so why dont I. im not Christian, a muslim nor a jew nor am i Buddhist. in fact i dont have a religion, however i do believe there is a supreme intelligence. i dont see it being jesus or any other typical god of a religion that humans study i just see it as a supreme power. i think way too many people are close minded individuals who refuse to really think about it.. most of us understand the concept of the big bang but what was before that and what caused the big bang and what caused those things to create the big bang? some people will try to come back with well that doesn't make sense either sean that doesnt explain anything.. cant you see? were not GOD we cant comprehend all the vast knowledge of the universe we cant prove or disprove anything ! listen to your selves and THINK ABOUT IT

    August 11, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
    • stormsun

      Sean, thanks for sharing your thoughtful views. Perhaps one of the biggest tragedies of organized religion is that it STOPS people from thinking and questioning and searching for more answers – because all of the religions claim they already HAVE the answers. They don't want you deviating from their franchise – er, their denomination...because organized religion isn't really about solving the great mysteries, or about God and the hereafter. It is about control in the here and now, first and foremost. It has always been so. Who benefits most directly from a flock of followers? The leader(s), of course. In power, prestige, lifestyle, money, and control. Warren Jeffs has reminded us (in case the reminder was needed) that it is also about sexual control and exemption from the rules imposed on everyone else. Those are my thoughts. Could there be higher intelligences? How could we say one way or another? We are barely beginning to learn about the universe around us, but if we learn anything, it is that the universe is more complex, wondrous, and surprising than anything we have yet imagined.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
      • Phil

        Interesting thoughts. I disagree, however, that "all religions" claim they have all the answers. Most Christian denominations make no such claim. They each might claim to be the only true follower of Christian values and Christian theology, perhaps, but they definitely do not claim to have all the answers.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
      • stormsun

        Hi Phil, thanks for your comments. Guess I went to the wrong denominations (all protestant variants of Christianity), but I have lost track of the times I was told "all the answers you need are in this Book." It wasn't Mad Magazine they were holding up at the pulpit, either. The Catholic church, from whence ALL Christian denominations are descended, taught for centuries that there was not only no need for any other books, but that the faithful did not even need to learn how to read – because then they would be tempted to interpret the Bible for themselves, and that was the job of your priest. If early leaders of the Christian church had prevailed, we would still accept the "fact" that the Earth is flat, and the sun and stars revolve around our planet. But even with all of these blatant, universe-sized mistakes, organized religion has managed to perpetuate its powerful hold on humankind. Go figure.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:17 pm |
    • john smith

      This discussion seems to have gotten pretty well off track – but the original article certainly wasn't written by a scientist.
      The claim is that some amino acids were found on a meteorite. An amino acid is a molecule made up of a few dozen atoms.
      DNA, on the other hand, is two huge chains of phosphate and sugars containing millions of amino acids in a very specific order.

      It's like saying a couple of letters of the alphabet is the same as a copy of "Tom Sawyer".

      August 11, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
      • Mark C

        They aren't amino acids, Einstein. Amino acids make up proteins, not DNA. God, take a science class at some point before making yourself look like an imbecile on the Internet.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
      • guest

        Marc C... they are however nucleotides, just "components" of DNA and not an actual DNA strand. so the analogy of a few letters equaling a novel is quite appropriate.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
      • @markc

        Mark, the problem is that you are the only one that looks like an imbecile on this blog.....

        August 11, 2011 at 10:58 pm |
  39. chicken before egg

    Somewhere way up in this discussion someone said that it was not possible to have matter come in to being without creation. How then would God come into being?

    August 11, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
    • Ryan

      They play by their own set of rules really, that's why it's ultimately pointless to argue with a religious person. You will always come to their irreducibility argument.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
    • Phil

      Simple: God is not matter. God is spiritual only, no matter, no body, no need for creation. But this mystical stuff is not all that relevant to this article. I think it's interesting to see DNA on meteors because it might mean that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Whether or not there is doesn't have a lot to do with the existence or not of a supreme being.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
      • stormsun

        What does it mean to be a "spiritual" being as opposed to physical? How does a "spiritual" entity process information? How does it function? From whence does it derive energy or sustenance? How does it maintain its form and intergrity so that it continues, consistently, through time? Most importantly, where did it come from? How did such an unthinkably complex being spring into existence? You see, "God created everything" answers nothing. It simply presents a facile non-answer in attempting to explain the origin of everything else, without really explaining anything at all.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
      • UncelM

        For spiritual read made-up.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
    • Mark C

      Those same morons couldn't define "matter" if their lives depended on it.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
      • Todd

        The answer to the life's most important question is 43.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:01 pm |
  40. garderner

    God or gods are fabricated characters by male human. Those who abide to such the notion of god are either being fooled, indoctrinated, brainwashed, or a victim of a perpetual lies from one generation to another. I shall conclude god does not exist. it's a lie.

    August 11, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
    • Sean

      people only limit themselves to the fabricated religion that man created.. i think earths religions are a bunch of BS and that there is a much higher power than most people are lead to believe

      August 11, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
    • chaz

      I know there is a God, and I don't believe anything anyone tells me about it. I don't belong to a religion. There is a God, but it is not quite what you think it is. Those who argue .. I believe theres a God, I don't believe... give it a million years before they figure out God = 1 + 1 = 2

      August 11, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
      • Guest

        Well said Chaz.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
    • Guest

      Pretty gutsy of you to state such a bold comment, but obviously that thought isn't uncommon. Maybe tell people why/how you came to that conclusion, you demand proof of the existence of such being(s) but i think the same should be demanded of you. And since you know every inch of the vast universe than you should use that knowledge for more productive situations, don't you think? Lets not debate about this and just enjoy this awesome discovery please.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
    • Brent

      God is just a big magnet somewhere in space

      August 11, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
  41. Tom Hartman

    Who created the meteorites?
    Who started the "big bang"?

    Oh yeah that's right, science doesn't know. It doesn't have to lol

    August 11, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
    • Mark C

      Neither do you, half-wit.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
    • Jess

      Why must there be a "who"? Since when have we (as humans) always have to be personify everything that is in this universe? And that's why religion is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. Even if there's a supreme being, why the hell would they think like a human? Wouldn't they be a larger omnipower than us? And that's why I don't believe. What created stuff will always be a mystery- and the more we try to understand it, the more open minded you need to be- instead of close minded religious-only people.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
      • Sean

        very well said

        August 11, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
      • TJ

        I also believe non-believers as well as believers see GOD as a person, a human or superhuman. I do believe in GOD but GOD can be anything really. Who's to say GOD isnt everything, who's to say GOD isnt your big bang. I believe GOD creates. In that sense GOD can be DNA. GOD just IS to me.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:45 am |
    • Jeff

      Who is outside the universe?
      Who was here before the big bang?
      Who decided pants falling down past one's backside was a good look?

      All of these things are great mysteries.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
    • Daniel

      Logically, it was all created by someone who thinks it's really important what kind of hat I wear.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:23 pm |
  42. REALESTIC

    FINDING DNA IN SPACE ROCKS PROVED THERE IS NO GOD! – AGAIN – FINDING DNA IN SPACE ROCKS PROVED THERE IS NO GOD! BUT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING AT WORK SMARTER THAN US – BUT THATS NOT HARD TO COME BY AT ALL. IF GOT IS REAL AGAIN WHERE IS HE – I WAN TO SEE HIS FACE – IF THESE IS GOD WHY DO HIS SERVANTS MOLEST CHILDREN – WHY IS THE ARCH BISHOP RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS – WHY DOES THE VADICAN KEEP SECRETS FROM THE PUBLIC! WHY! IF GOD IS GOOD THEN WHY WERE INNOCENT PEOPLE MURDERED BECAUSE THEY CHOSE NOT TO BELIEVE – THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND CUMMUNISM. GOD – GO BACK ON FRIES IM STARVIN.

    August 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • stormsun

      Finding DNA in meteorites neither proves nor disproves the existence of god. Making such a claim is as illogical as claiming there IS a god because we have this book that a bunch of men, living many centuries ago, claimed he revealed to them (and of course, they copied it all down faithfully and with total accuracy). Those of us who do not believe should not be as insistent regarding our positions – without evidence and demonstrable proof – as believers are.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:38 pm |
    • Been there done that

      You seem quite passionate in your claim that this is proof there is no God. Did you even read the article? They didn't find DNA, they found the building blocks of DNA, which is like saying I didn't find a shirt, but I found cotton. It's not the same thing. Anyway, if you want to prove there's no God, please contribute to an experiment that will prove it. Oh, wait you can't put it under the scientific microscope? And why is that? Because it's a matter of faith. Whether or not you believe it, is your choice, but everyone is free to believe what they wish.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
      • stormsun

        Here's the problem: you note that we are free to believe whatever we want. Yet if you're a nonbeliever that isn't quite true. The majority (if we are to believe the surveys) in this country are believers. They bombard us with their messages regarding God day in and day out. It is embedded in our money, in the oath of allegiance, and in ways large and small at every turn. It is applauded if someone offers a personal "testimony" about God or their relationship to Jesus on national TV, and everyone thinks that is just fine. But if a person makes a public statement that he or she is NOT a believer, it will be followed by condemnation and criticism from every direction. The GOP makes it a litmus test that you MUST be a Christian – and you better be sure it's an "acceptable" form of Christianity at that. Mitt Romney will not be nominated for the Presidency, for example – he's "the wrong kind" of Christian, you see. Discussions about religion, about how and what we believe – and WHY – are long overdue. Religious leaders hate such discussion, because then people begin questioning and even (gasp) thinking for themselves. Reason and logic have always been the enemies of organized religion. Why do you think that is? Just a question, sir. Why did the Catholic church murder millions during the centuries of the Inquisition for simply questioning and doubting what the Church insisted they believe? You know the answer as well as I.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
  43. yada

    ceases...sorry

    August 11, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
    • WyattFNEarp

      All is forgiven.... As long as 10 hail marys are performed. :)

      August 11, 2011 at 11:04 pm |
  44. heliocracy

    Sorry if someone already said this, but that headline is downright deceptive. DNA was not found in meteorites, two of the four building blocks of DNA were found. That's a HUGE difference.

    August 11, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
    • stormsun

      True. These are just precursors. But the implications are still significant, don't you think?

      August 11, 2011 at 9:54 pm |
  45. Cliff

    Does this mean that there will not actually be 40 virgins waiting for those who blow themselves up in the name of Allah? That is to bad because little do they know the joke would have been on them. The virgins probably would have been very fat and ugly:).

    August 11, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
    • dave

      The first virgin I want is Mary.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
      • Cliff

        Ha. Sorry to break it to you but she was not a virgin. Just lied and said that she was:) That was not very christian of her. I heard she was great at drawing cartoons of Mohamed though.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
      • Laura

        Hi Dave- try googling Zeitun, Egypt, Coptic Church, 1968 and see what comes up.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
  46. REALESTIC

    if an hostile advanced civilication finds us we will find god alright – we will probably find a terror like nothing we imagined-I feel there is 99 percent truth in that Stephen Hawking warned us about on his CNN interview.

    August 11, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
    • JC

      You mean like the House of Representatives? Or more like the Senate?

      August 11, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
    • Cliff

      If I did not have children I think this might actually be cool to see. What a way to go... fighting aliens.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
    • stormsun

      I didn't see Hawking's interview; perhaps you could post a link to it. I believe it is unlikely in the extreme that there is no other life in the universe, and I would expect intelligent life to have evolved on some percentage of planets (or non-planetary environments). However, I think it would be foolish of us, possibly fatally foolish, to assume these life-forms have human motivations or thought processes. Earth, competition seems to be the rule rather than the exception; why would we think that should be different outside the envelope of our atmosphere. What I'm saying is that we should anticipate interspecies contacts and approach them with extreme caution – even if their intent is not overtly hostile. All you have to do is look at what happened to indigenous HUMAN populations when European explorers arrived in the New World. The cultural shock alone might have been enough to destroy their societies, but of course the impact was of a much more direct nature.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:31 pm |
  47. broncogator

    So, I guess those songs we used to sing had more meaning than we realized....
    " Like a rock " and " She loves me like a rock " wow... who'd of thunk it !!??

    August 11, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
    • stormsun

      LOL. That was good...and quick, too.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
  48. Limbaugh is a liberal

    But... but... the Bible doesn't mention anything about meteorites. Or DNA. None of those exist! It's all a lie! Life doesn't have DNA! There are no meteorites!

    August 11, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
    • Joey

      The bible was written by retards that had nothing better to do than day dream and make up stories all day , the bible was created to control idiots like yourself ... Jesus never existed ... god or the creator of everything doesn't give a flying f**k whether we live or die... we are a speck in the universe ... get over it and please do everyone a favor ... go kill yourself

      August 11, 2011 at 9:33 pm |
    • snow

      Well Joey.. Its that time of the month where you need to check the batteries on your sarcasm detector!!

      August 11, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
      • Lest you forget...

        Snow, you sure got the time of the month comment right...WHOA! (That WHOA! is meant to be read in the voice of Joey from the hit sitcom "Blossom")

        August 11, 2011 at 10:11 pm |
  49. Tim W.

    It says nothing about God....it just says they found some stuff on the rocks that we find in life forms here on earth.....Thats all.....calm down now !

    August 11, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
  50. REALESTIC

    These is no god! there is no almighty – where is he- he dosent exist – because illl tell you what – if I see go hes going to get a kick in the balls. IF THERE WAS A GOD WE STUPID HMANS WOULDENT EVEN NEED TO THINK – AND HE SOULD BE SMART ENOUGHT TO NOT BE BOTHERED WITH SLOBS LIKE YOU. please people get with the program and off the funny cigaretts. YOU KNOW I REALY HOPE THAT SINCE WE ARE ON THIS PICE OF DUST IN SPACE WAVING OUR STUPID HANDS THAT THE LIFE WE FIND DOSENT WANT TO KICK OUR A55 BECAUSE THEN YOU WILL BE WICHING YOU FAKE HONEY JEASUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY BURGER FLIPPER EXISTED!AGAIN

    August 11, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
    • JC

      If there isn't a god somewhere, then explain women... and the corvette.... I better throw that in too.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
      • REALESTIC

        I HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR WOMEN THEY ARE TOTALY HOT AND TOTALY DANGEROUS AT THE SAME TIME – I BELIEVE NO OTHER BEING IS CAPEABLE BUT THEN AGAIN WAIT TILL THE BIG BAD UGLY FROM OUTER SPACE SEE US WAVING OUR FLAG – WE MAY JUST GET IT CRAPPED ON.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
    • scranton

      Until your on your death bed, then you will be calling out to him for forgiveness. Kinda of the "no atheist in fox hole" scenario. Easy to spout hate towards God when you are safe pounding on the keys of your computer.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
      • Butthead

        Hey, brainless is scranton, stop projecting your infantile whining onto others.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:27 pm |
      • Mark C

        Actually, moron, I had a major heart attack and it never even occured to me for an instant to think about your invisible man that controls the universe. Not even when I was being wheeled into surgery.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:38 pm |
      • Mel

        Actually, what are really hilarious are all the uber-religious people who ridicule science and Nasa.......on their keyboards.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:48 pm |
      • @markc

        mark you have so much hate in you...not surprising though for a believer in the atheist religion....could this be one of the reasons you had a heart attack?

        August 11, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
    • REALESTIC

      calling for forgiveness on my death bed – YEA THATS CALLED PAIN THERE EINSTEIN! HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS CHRIST THE BURGER FLIPPER.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
    • Smart & Proud to be a Christian!

      There is a God and Creator that created EVERYTHING, and if you ask him, he MIGHT make you be able to spell!
      (Really-think about it-if bacteria evolved/created every single living thing, then why are we able to kill so many of them, why haven't they evolved a language!)

      August 11, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
      • Jeff

        This has to be the most retarded and off based argument I have ever heard in my life. It's theses types of arguments towards evolution that provides nothing to other side of the debate, and your utter lack of understanding towards a subject has cause you form an illogical theory and try to pass it off as truth. It's as stupid as me arguing that there is no intelligent design based on the fact that an all knowing creator would have thought out the cleanliness and efficiency of our bodies waste a lot better, instead we have to wipe our own A55 because of the left over hair on our behinds from. When we were apes!

        August 11, 2011 at 10:02 pm |
    • the joey

      If there is no higher being, then explain to me, where did space, the rules that govern it, and the materials that expanded/exploded from a singularity to form the big bang come from?

      Let me answer that for you – no one knows or can even comprehend such things. The greatest scientists will always avoid such questions.

      For all we know, the universe is inside a fricken diamond on God's ring. Who knows. People like you crack me up because there is NO proof God doesn't exist. None. Just supposed "educated" fools (educated doesn't mean intelligence by nay means) who like to make condescending comments about God that they can't back up (any more than I can back up that he does exist).

      August 11, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
      • Mark C

        Uh, actually, half-wit, scientists DO NOT avoid such questions. Stephen Hawking has put out several books on the subject, as have others. The fact that you are a blantant ignoramus is obvious.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
      • Mark C

        Moron, you can't prove that leprechaun or unicorns don't exist. You can't prove that your god is the only god. Maybe Zeuss and Poseidon exist too. So I guess you're stuck believing in all those too, aren't you?

        August 11, 2011 at 10:22 pm |
      • Jeff

        At no point did I say there was no GOD I was however pointing out the lack of merit for this argument that there is, because of all things to point as proof is that because there is still bacteria therefore life couldn't have evolved from it. Whereas one can say that evolution does not disprove a God but may in fact explain how a God would have cosen to create life. As for the creation of the universe, it will always be an interesting question one that would be great to answer but even that will never settle this argument. The question that I find interesting is if there is a God why do we think something as powerful as that would create life here on Earth and yet go no further and create life elsewhere in the universe?

        August 11, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
    • leecherius

      Dude , are you out of crack or what ???

      August 11, 2011 at 11:19 pm |
      • leecherius

        @ REALESTIC

        August 11, 2011 at 11:22 pm |
  51. Dennis

    No invisible friend's feelings were hurt by this discovery.

    August 11, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
  52. Robrob

    How can a single science article attract so many wingnuts?

    August 11, 2011 at 9:14 pm |
  53. questioner

    So let me get this theory straight. These meteorite derived nucleotide bases somehow became organized into long strings that were simultaneously present with numerous complex proteins and tRNAs that mysteriously began copying the DNA which subsequently took on the property of coding for the 20 or so proteins it needs to replicate in a three base 20 amino acid code and all of this occured in some kind of protected membrane that collectively divided itself to form the first cells. Where exactly is the science in this?

    August 11, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
    • JC

      No one said that. At least, no one should have said that. But let's just assume that the proteins concerned tend to want to come together and stay there. It's a beginning... nothing more. It isn't even really life, but with this sort of reaction going on, it creates the potential for life to develop.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
    • questioner

      You are correct. I was simply trying to point out that discoveries like these are very, very far from explaining where life came from. We still have no idea.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
    • stormsun

      It is called evolutionary biology. There are any number of good sources for additional information on it. If these findings are correct, and it should come as no surprise if they are, the process is not restricted to this small speck of dust in the universe that we call Earth, but is part of a ubiquitous process that goes on consistency wherever there is matter and the proper conditions. On the other hand, perhaps you prefer "intelligent design," but that solves nothing either – for then you are left with the problem "where did the intelligent DESIGNER come from?"

      August 11, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
    • questioner

      Stormsun: evolutionary biology says nothing about where life came from. It only describes how life changes over time. The origin of life is completely a black box.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
      • stormsun

        Questioner: you are right – evolutionary biology does not explain "where everything came from" – it makes no attempt to do that. I was replying to your original statement about the chemical precursors to life appearing in meteorites. Science doesn't try to explain where everything came from because there is nothing from which to build a workable theory about it. Religion leaps into that void, however, trying to explain the "theory of everything" without even so much as a single PROOF that anything "supernatural" exists. Ironically, all Christians have to substantiate any of their claims is... the word of other human beings.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
    • Robrob

      "Where is the science in all of this?" – - Funny, nothing you just said was in the article at all. fantasy much?

      August 11, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
  54. stormy

    i love how we keep learning more and more about where we came from...god is powerful and i am a star!

    August 11, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
  55. JC

    I think there's probably enough room for both sides. Things get a little more interesting when we observe a black hole creating its own galaxy, and bits and pieces of bits and pieces that are the building blocks found here and there. Consider the viral traces which remain in our DNA strands, and remember how viruses are able to replicate in the first place, and you're faced with the realization that it doesn't take too much to get from the building blocks to the building. One thing is absolutely certain: space is vast, and we have only the tiniest little idea about that which it contains. Life does not need absolutes to justify itself, and if the universe could think, it would probably look on this whole thread as one giant cosmic joke. Maybe it does. Personally, I have a feeling that we have all got it horribly wrong, and we're going to be pretty surprised when our distant descendants finally get all the pieces put together. Assuming we manage to make it that far, of course...

    August 11, 2011 at 9:10 pm |
  56. unafy

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT_RBqHR31I&w=640&h=390]

    August 11, 2011 at 9:10 pm |
  57. Beturarse

    I think its time for God to shake his giant Etch A Sketch and start from scratch.

    August 11, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
    • THICK BLOND CHICK LOVER

      These is no god! there is no almighty – where is he- he dosent exist – because illl tell you what – if I see go hes going to get a kick in the balls. IF THERE WAS A GOD WE STUPID HMANS WOULDENT EVEN NEED TO THINK – AND HE SOULD BE SMART ENOUGHT TO NOT BE BOTHERED WITH SLOBS LIKE YOU. please people get with the program and off the funny cigaretts. YOU KNOW I REALY HOPE THAT SINCE WE ARE ON THIS PICE OF DUST IN SPACE WAVING OUR STUPID HANDS THAT THE LIFE WE FIND DOSENT WANT TO KICK OUR A55 BECAUSE THEN YOU WILL BE WICHING YOU FAKE HONEY JEASUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY BURGER FLIPPER EXISTED!

      August 11, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
      • Anadna

        Hopefully Jesus isn't a 3rd. Grade spelling test. If he is, you are screwed my brother...

        August 11, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
      • Rags

        My, my, my! Another drunk slurring their words or too stupid to get the speling right.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:20 pm |
      • Run4DaHills

        Wow. Now, that's a really coherent and intelligent statement you've made there. Such impeccable grammar and typing skills! Oh, my! LOL. Now, go bang your rocks together and get back to us in a few million years.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
  58. not a chance

    There is no god you fanatical idiots-there are only advanced life forms so to all you Jesus Christ fools go duck tape s cross to your forehead an burn yourself at the stake. Many the good lord will shove a fire extuengishure up your a55

    August 11, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • stormsun

      This is rude. I am not a believer, but this kind of discourse on a public site does you and all other nonbelievers a grave disservice. If you want others to respect your right to believe as you see fit, accord them the same right and be courteous even when disagreeing.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:11 pm |
    • THICK BLOND CHICK LOVER

      REALY!.....IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD THAN YOU ARE SAYING THE MURDER OF MILLIONS OF POOR PROPLE OF OLD WAS JUST OK – AND IM NOT OK WITH THAT – GOT THAT MR KING HENERY!

      August 11, 2011 at 9:14 pm |
      • leecherius

        don't really know of anybody that "God" killed....but there are untold millions of victims of men.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:29 pm |
    • Mama Bear

      Whomever spanked your split cheeks into life form is probably very, very sorry. . . . you are basically a "miracle" that somebody let you live. . .

      August 11, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
    • Rags

      You're either drunker than a boozehound or you never graduated from pre-school or you constantly failed kindergarten.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
    • bgettel

      We'll see, my friend. For now you have time to open your mind and your heart to the possibility that you're wrong.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
      • Butthead

        It is infinitely more likely that you are wrong.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
  59. H in Texas

    Countdown until one of these geniuses starts quoting that stupid fake story about Einstein arguing about the existence of God with his professor that morphs mid story from a science to a psychology professor.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
    • THICK BLOND CHICK LOVER

      Well you know all the bible belt fools just have to edge in their stupid jeasus christ crap whih has been a lie and an excude to murder people since man walked the earth.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • Wzrd1

      Einstein DID say that he came upon his theories by asking himself, "How would God have done this?"
      Not that that has anything at all to do with nucleotides on a meteor.
      Funny how CNN covers the story two days after it broke everywhere else, Fox had this story yesterday!

      August 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
      • stormsun

        Einstein was categorically a nonbeliever. He used the word "God" and references to a higher power in the sense of a pantheist – meaning he felt reverence and awe at the entirety of the universe and nature. If you like, I will provide quotes where he stated explicitly that he did NOT believe in a personal god to whom we should look for assistance in human affairs. Please do not depict this man, one of the greatest scientific minds of any age as a supporter of religious views. In fact, he received considerable hate mail for religious leaders and common people across America following some of his comments, despite his contributions to America and to humankind and science more generally.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
      • Rags

        Excuse me, Wzard, it'd FAUX. Let's not dirty the name of a lovely wild animal.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
  60. Ghryswald

    Ghryswald's Law:
    As an online discussion on scientific discovery grows longer, the probability of someone asking "where is your god now?" approaches 1.

    Not everyone who believes in God or gods is out to tell everyone else that they are damned. And not everyone who doesn't believe in God or gods is out tell believers "so, there!"

    Intolerant people on both sides need to come down off their high horses and just get along. One thing we *all* can do to get along is to laugh at CNN and the person who chooses headlines that are blatantly misleading or false.

    No DNA was found in the meterorites. Essential building blocks of DNA were found. "DNA discovered in meteorites." That's sort of like saying "iPhone discovered on Mars" simply because all of the raw materials necessary to create an iPhone exist on Mars. (please accept my hyperbole rather than trying to flame me for not knowing that XYZ minerals are not in evidence on Mars, kkthx)

    August 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
    • Robrob

      Reasonable post. What I don't understand is why the (intolerant) believers get so freaked out over the possibility of life elsewhere. God made a lpretty big Universe, filled with more than a few planets. Isn't it possible He was also capable of creating more than one with life? Why does that seem to scare some folks?

      August 11, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
      • DHarri

        We'll just have to wait and see on this issue, these types of issues remind me of the gay marriage topics, many people mostly the pro gay marriage people are just down right hateful when someone doesn't agree with them which is the same thing that happens in these discussions of God and creation. I personally believe in God which what it comes down to, you're either a believer or not, I refuse to get into arguments about it with some people. I do admit that I very much dislike some of the things that are said as I'm sure people on the other side of this argument dislike some things being said.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
      • Rags

        Because, once that is firmly known we'll be seen as a very low life form. Which we are!

        August 11, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
      • Ghryswald

        Rags:
        What if we found out that we were in fact the most advanced civilization in the Universe? I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities.

        Isn't believing in advanced alien civilizations akin to believing in God? There's nothing wrong with either of those beliefs. We have zero proof of either.

        I prefer to start with believing in myself. And since we do have proof (all philosophical arguments put aside on whether we are real or not), that we exist ... to the best of our knowledge we *are* the most advanced civilization in the Universe.

        So yeah, the Universe may just be %^%^ed because we can't seem to get along, but there you have it.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
    • Lest you forget...

      You forgot to mention the probability of someone posting a overly simplified political statement and the probability of CNN posting a lazy video/iReport instead of publishing an actual article...

      August 11, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
      • Ghryswald

        Nah. I just wanted to keep my law simple. When you keep adding this and that to laws you get our tax code, and then it's all about hiring accountants and telephone sanitizers.

        And yes, Ghryswald's Law is entirely derivative of Godwin's Law, but since I did the copy-paste and editorial changes, it deserves its own Wikipedia entry, dontchathink?
        {chuckle}

        August 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • Butthead

      What a ludicrous analogy.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
      • Ghryswald

        Thank you. That's how it was intended to be; as ridiculous as the headline of the article.

        It's good to be the king.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
  61. Jasper

    People of faith, you should just leave the atheists alone. Don't you know that atheists are simply too lazy to seek answers at a cosmic, theologic or metaphysical level? They would rather just exist for a brief moment in time, then vanish for all eternity, their lives and the lives of all others having served no deeper purpose than to procreate, eat cheetos and be kind to one another. That's nice while they're here, but what a profound waste of space to exist for absolutely no purpose. Atheists are afraid to seek answers where spiritualism meets science and where science meets metaphysics. They think that their puny, pea-sized brains have the capacity to figure out our purpose and they have no problem expounding their "religion" upon others. I laugh at atheists. They're so cute!!!

    August 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
    • You

      You're an idiot. Please die and go meet your god soon. Thanks.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • shamgar50

      Jasper, Saying "god did it!", now that’s lazy. Doesn’t take much effort at all.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
      • Jasper

        Well said. I agree. Anyone of any religion, including the atheist religion, is lazy if they stop seeking answers. Bible thumpers don't seek answers as they just accept what's in the Book without question. Likewise, most atheists I've met think that atheism is a "freeing" experience because they no longer feel compelled to figure out whether there is, in fact, a deeper purpose than simply taking up space. I don't have the definitive answers. Neither do atheists. BUT AT LEAST I HAVEN'T STOPPED LOOKING! What's your (i.e. atheists) excuse?

        August 11, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
      • CommonSense

        Jasper, you go right ahead and spend (waste) your life looking for your "answers." And atheism is not a religion. Have a terrific night. – One of your cute atheists :)

        August 11, 2011 at 11:08 pm |
    • Robrob

      Wow, that's the silliest thing imaginable!

      August 11, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
    • Paula_D

      It's funny how you can always tell which posts are from the faithful vs. those from atheists. Atheist's posts are always bitter and angry. Prob'ly cause this is the end of the line for them :) Bye bye, apple pie.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
      • You

        It's the end of the line for you too, except you don't realize it.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:06 pm |
      • Cliff

        Yes because the faithful are so nice and sweet and it is all of the atheists that bring evil into the world : )

        August 11, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
    • Cliff

      Maybe it is just that the "faithful" can not accept the fact that this is all that there is to life? Here and now in this time and place. No unicorns or giant lobsters or virgins in waiting.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
    • Nyack5821

      @You: Is that the 'ole "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument? Oooh....compelling!

      August 11, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
      • You

        No it's not.

        August 12, 2011 at 1:39 am |
    • Aaron

      Did you exist before the Gods created you?

      If the answer is no, then you are telling me you have no problem believing there was a time when you did not exist.

      That means your mental hangup is believing that you might not exist again.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
    • garderner

      Who created hell? Theist! Who created "sin"? Theists... Who created "satan"? Theists.. well then who created god? Theists. Get a life, don't go around and scare people with your thousand year old scare tactic. We are not scare of your hell. Go scare someone else ..maybe you can go to the middle east to compete with muslim __ will see whose god would be the most scary ... hehehehhe

      August 11, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
    • Lest you forget...

      I truly believe that religious and anti-religious persons post inflammatory comments only because they enjoy watching people of either persuasion replying to them....any attention is desirable on these the Internets.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:20 pm |
    • Peter

      Jasper, you are pathetic. Metaphics tries to answer two fundamental questions: What is there? and What is it like? In other words metaphysics attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, including existence, the definition of object, property, space, time, causality, and possibility. Religious people don't seek these answers – their only answer to all questions is "God made it" and "It is God's will". Now, that is what I call lazy. So next time you use your mouth or pen, try to engage your brain first. Otherwise you not only look lazy but ignorant too.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
      • Jasper

        Peter, since you start your argument with name-calling, I can only assume that I am not dealing with an adult. That's okay, kiddo... I admire your spunk and gumption and would compel you to continue your search for truth and answers. You can start by developing, at least, a fundamental understanding of metaphysics. I would like to recommend that read something (anything) by Amit Goswami, or any other thought-leader in this field. Good luck! (Don't forget to brush your teeth and do your homework!) :)

        August 11, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
    • doctordonna

      I used to be a believer, and believe me I was much lazier back then. I rarely questioned anything, and if I did felt immediately guilty about it. Now I try to learn as much as possible about the universe and humanity, and even though I don't believe in an afterlife there is no reason for me to believe that I don't have a reason to be here. Your comment is basically a sad attempt at trolling for angry responses from atheists so you can say "see, told you so".

      August 11, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
    • ScienceGod

      The problem Jasper, is that you don't see how religion and science complement each other. Instead, your short-sightedness causes you to reach for the only thing you do understand whenever you run into something that challenges your beliefs. That's when Christians (in particular) turn to ad-hoc science and make-believe scripture to validate erroneous ideas. And that's when the rest of us roll our eyes and sigh. We really don't want to hear your interpretation of what you think is in the Bible. We're not interested in what you think God is thinking. If release yourself of the need to prove science through religion – if you release yourself of the burden to create a religion that explains scientific discoveries, then (and only then) will you find that maybe even Atheists will listen to you.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:13 pm |
    • stormsun

      Jasper, your comments are flawed on numerous levels, not the least of which is lumping all atheists together as if it was a consistenty philosophy. I'm glad, however, that you think nonbelievers are "cute." Even you must realize that nonbelievers are not behind most of the hatred and killing that is going on in the world. Nor do atheists belong to an organization that has a history, spanning many centuries, of oppressing others for the "evil" of believing differently from themselves. How many tens of thousands, no, how many millions have been put to death because they did not believe in the Christian religion? Since you are so big on keeping an open mind, maybe you have read some history. How many innocents have been burned alive at the stake for being "heretics" or "witches?" We look at Islam today and are alarmed at the atrocities committed upon the orders of their religious leaders; but what is the difference in this from so many campaigns and crusades and pogroms conducted by men in the name of Jesus? In the case of all organized religion, the root problem is one and the same: allowing mortal, human men to claim that they speak for God, and allowing them to dictate what we think, what we believe, and how we act. When we give control over our lives to men who claim authority that can be neither seen, nor heard, nor demonstrated to even exist... then we open ourselves to all manner of tragedy. I will not expect a reasoned reply, based on your earlier rather condescending post, but I am always open to surprise and to learning new things. So go ahead, show me what a reasonable, logical,, and thoughtful person you really are.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm |
  62. bigdoggie

    As Douglas Adams would say, "That about wraps it up for god!"

    August 11, 2011 at 8:49 pm |
    • Ghost

      You obviously don't understand the difference between the physical and the metaphysical.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:53 pm |
      • bigdoggie

        And I don't believe in ghosts, either!

        August 11, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
      • You

        Physical = reality

        Metaphysical = bullshit

        August 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
      • Ghost

        Thats because scientists and atheists only see with their eyes.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
      • Nyack5821

        Ghost, give it up. You're dealing with atheists. Don't you know they've already figured it out? "If I can't see it, smell it, touch it, then it obviously doesn't exist!" LOL

        August 11, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
      • Cliff

        Yes and priests like to tough with their hands.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
      • You

        How is "if I can't detect it in any way then it doesn't exist" in any way funny?

        August 12, 2011 at 1:41 am |
    • Nyack5821

      Douglas Adams was a satirist. I like Doug. He's funny :)

      August 11, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
  63. I'm Outside

    Nothing like a little bit of science to scare the sh*t out of religious people. Must be difficult to believe in something that becomes more and more obsolete and proven to a be nothing but fairy tales every damn day.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
  64. Cliff

    I am sure that the dna was placed there by god or allah or perhaps a giant lobster or something. Maybe Zeus or Poseidon.... wait... no one believes in those silly mythological gods any more. It must have been the god that has not been debunked yet that lives in that mysterious place called heaven instead of a god that lives in the sea or in a volcano or in the clouds since we now know what these are. Silly silly people.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • Ghost

      Yeah, that silly 85% of the world population excluded, no one believes in God... tard.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
      • kevin

        Almost 100% believed the world was flat. Look how that went. Whatever no need to find solutions to an unsolvable problem. The burden of disproof is high on that one.

        For something so ingrained as religion, it's a bit odd that most of the population has the same religion as their parents.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
      • Cliff

        Really? There are still people out there that believe in Zeus, Mars, Athena.... I don't care if 99.99% of people on the planet believe in "god". They are wrong. It is a silly belief.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:03 pm |
  65. Ghost

    I am sure it wasn't picked up on impact........ no...... no way it could have been..... thats not at all possible.....

    August 11, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • Pravda

      It does say that nucleobases are not found in biology.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
  66. David

    DECEPTION POINT

    August 11, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • bigdoggie

      Deception Point is in Washington state.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
  67. James

    This isn't proof for or against the existence of God. This is proof for the existence of nucleobases in meteors, that's all. It's insane how far people can draw conclusions. "There's this chemical in meteors – God must be alive!"

    August 11, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
    • The Inquisitor

      Finally a comment with which I can wholeheartedly agree! One discovery is made and suddenly all the stereotypical arguments for and against religion arise... It happens every time, eh? No one really knows anyway. The point is we're TRYING to understand the universe. Everyone's looking for the same answers; yet we're pitted against each other on forums. Nice!

      August 12, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
  68. Njau Ndirangu

    The only idea im not willing to accept is that a supreme being came from nowhere and designed everything but gave us a broken down manual called the bible. A world that is wonderfully created by a supreme being should not be supported by an half ass book like a bible.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    • Pal

      The existance of man's half-baked ideas about god shouldn't be used as evidence that there is no god. Yes, it's a pain, but it proves nothing either way. We must each look deeply into our own hearts, for that is the only place he will be found – not "out there".

      August 11, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
      • Jasper

        Finally, someone with a voice-of-reason has spoken. Thank you! (Atheists, are you listening? Yeah, I thought not. But go ahead and feel free to give yet another condescending 'know-it-all' comment. LOL

        August 11, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
      • Butthead

        Your heart is a muscle that pumps blood, and Jasper's brain is apparently a dormant blob of gray matter.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
    • Nyack5821

      Couldn't agree more. But remember, a Creator didn't give us the Bible. Some nut-jobs in the Middle East did. Please don't blame the Bible on God. While we're at it, please don't blame the world's lame attempts to explain our purpose via religion on God: Religion is also man-made. Is it possible to imagine a being having vastly superior intellect that figured out how to create and seed planets? I don't think it's that far-fetched. You know, it doesn't have to resemble unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. That's just as ridiculous as this world's religions.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
      • Mark C

        "Is it possible to imagine a being having vastly superior intellect that figured out how to create and seed planets? I don't think it's that far-fetched. You know, it doesn't have to resemble unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. That's just as ridiculous as this world's religions."

        Actually all those propositions, including yours, have one thing in common: there is exactly zero evidence for any of them.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
      • Nyack5821

        Point well-taken. But consider that the definitive proof that there is no God comes in at 0%. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Yeah, I'll say it: Looks like we have to agree to disagree.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
  69. yada

    It never ceaces to amaze me...every religous, science or political blog you find the believers and the non-believers "having at it!" Most "believer's" posts are polite and caring. Most "non-believer" posts are arrogant, harsh, almost always "name calling" and it's crystal clear they don't even have an intellegent understanding on the book they're so eagerly criticizing. They don't sound like happy people or any one I'd want to hang out with. Scarey!

    August 11, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • bob

      Actually, I've read most of the bible and was brought up in a religious household. However, study and life experience has caused me to draw the conclusion that, more than likely, God does not exist. But, to your mention of believers and no-believers going at it, I have found just as much anger, vitriol and malice on either side. Last night I was reading a comment section where "believers" were calling non-believers a#$holes and bastards.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:49 pm |
    • Cliff

      Yes, because the "believers" are righteous hypocrites and the idea of some supreme being in a place called heaven is so ridiculous that is offensive. Was that enough name calling for you? :)

      August 11, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
    • Jim Saling

      I think that there a plenty of harsh comments on all sides. I am a christian that has been trained in science and continue to work in the science field. I fully believe in evolution, climate change, etc. I believe that the Earth is older than 6000 years (by many orders of magnitude). Do not attempt to lump all christians together, do not attempt to lump all atheists together, do not attempt to lump all muslims together, etc. You will only look foolish.

      One way to look at science and religion is that science explains how something happened and religion attempts to explain why something happened. If you believe that God created the heavens and the earth does that mean that God didn't use what we today call The Big Bang? If you believe that God created all creatures on earth does that mean that God didn't deliver certain ingredients to earth via meteorites?

      We need to get out of our old black-and-white way of looking at the world and be willing to take a more nuanced view of what is happening around us. Trust me, it makes life MUCH more interesting.

      On another note, the Christian Bible contains stories that people could tell one another to pass on certain truths and/or social norms. The stories were created for a different time in history and it is dangerous to try to apply them literally today. If you compare many of the stories in the old testament to stories that Native American societies told each other, you will find a lot of similarities. The Israelites were tribes of people that needed to make sense out of the world around them and what was happening to them. They didn't have the scientific tools that we have today so they just filled in the gaps. Ask someone of the Jewish faith about their view of the Torah. Do they take it literally?

      August 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
      • Peter Grenader

        This is one of the most intelligent comments I've ever seen in these types of arguments Thank you.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:07 am |
      • smh

        yours is the only sensible post I've read. Notice how nobody responded to it because they refuse to believe that there are people of faith who also believe in science.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:36 am |
    • WyattFNEarp

      @yada:
      *ceases *religious *believers' *(my fav)intelligent *Scary!

      It never ceaces to amaze me...every religous, science or political blog you find the believers and the non-believers "having at it!" Most "believer's" posts are polite and caring. Most "non-believer" posts are arrogant, harsh, almost always "name calling" and it's crystal clear they don't even have an intellegent understanding on the book they're so eagerly criticizing. They don't sound like happy people or any one I'd want to hang out with. Scarey!

      August 11, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
      • Peter Grenader

        You're kidding me, right? Not trying to fall into the arrogant trap here, but not only is your comment hypercritical – as you're stereotyping ppl here to the nines, eluding that only 'believers' are 'nice' – in my experience, it's the religious fanatics which do the bulk of the name calling, unless of course 'sinner' doesn't count. But to defend those like myself who take science at heart, yes, I can understand why we may get a little emotional having this discussion, given the face that 150 years after the fact the US is about the only developed country in the world still having the Darwin argument.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:04 am |
    • stormsun

      With all due respect, I disagree. I do not find that "most believers' quotes are polite and caring." While I would agree that too many of the nonbelievers' posts are less civil or temperate than they might be, you have to understand that in America, it is considered an aberration NOT to accept the majority-held religious beliefs. Talking about religion with believers generally provokes angry responses because – by definition – nonbelievers reject claims that revelations and holy books are the work of a supernatural and higher being. Yet there is no support to back up the believers' assertions. Most of the faithful are believers because they were brought up as believers; they were indoctrinated at an early age to accept without question and to view skeptics as agents of ... what, evil? The devil? Yet religion is the only aspect of life in which we are told to accept just because others tell us something is so, without anything to substantiate the claims. You would not buy a house, make even a modest investment, or buy a used car without more careful investigation and evidence that stated claims were true. But with religion? People routinely turn over control of their lives and their very thought processes "on faith," and guided by who? HUMAN RELIGIOUS LEADERS. Please note I have not, I hope, been discourteous or rude in my explanation. But you can scarcely imagine how it feels to be constantly harrangued and battered by others over issues they may fervently believe in, but for which they can offer no logical explanation or demonstration of the truths they claim.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
      • Grant

        I don't think it could have been put any better. Well done, sir.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
      • Peter Grenader

        These are Christian extremists you're talking about, who have taken control of the megaphone for far too long in recent years. While I would officially call myself agnostic, there are millions of God believing. or at very least spiritual ppl out there who don't buy the old testament, or take for what it was. In recent years however, there's been this polarity pushed around by fundamentalists that if you believe in evolution, or if DNA transmitted by meteors, then you're a non-believer or worse, a follower of Satan, or som such nonsense. I mean, 150 years after the fact, are we REALLY having the Darwin argument...really?

        August 12, 2011 at 2:55 am |
      • brian

        I wanted to take the time to thank storm sun for what has been the most well thought out and cohesive comments throughout this mind numbing string. Thank you, sir, for the lesson in rationales, intended or unintended, refreshing nevertheless.

        August 12, 2011 at 7:42 am |
    • Mark C

      Right, moron. Actually the believers are by far the bigger @ssholes in most cases, and know less about the bible or religion as well.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
  70. Mike G

    The headline is misleading. There were some ingredients of DNA found, not DNA. Huge difference there.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
    • Marie

      So nice of you to take the time out of your day to inform CNN of the error...You're such a tool. Get a hobby dude...

      August 11, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • Robrob

      "Testing revealed adenine and guanine, two fundamental components of DNA called nucleobases." – - Not the first time CNN has confused fairly significant elements of s science story.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • Paula_D

      Well there went the whole "it all happened as a happy accident" thing!

      August 11, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
  71. Jlarrald

    Well, there went the whole God/ Creation thing.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:38 pm |
    • Bruce33315

      Cretin Science would say that God created the universe, so that would include the DNA on meteorites.
      When we get to Mars, we will find more DNA there

      August 11, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
    • DHarri

      How did you come up with that conclusion, who do you think created the universe the people from the Star Trek series?

      August 11, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
  72. Me

    Higher likelihood of the flying spaghetti monster than a "god".

    August 11, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
  73. Brainiac

    Didn't atheists always argue that early earth had the "right conditions" for life to occur, even when it was mathematically impossible and the odds of DNA or even RNA naturally forming on early earth were astronomically highh?

    August 11, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
    • Jason

      Go check the Miller Urey experiment. Although the experiment failed to simulate the conditions found on Earth when it just formed, it still proves that amino acids can be formed from inorganic molecules.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
    • You

      How is it "mathematically impossible" for DNA to form? Learn some real math before saying bullshit like that.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
    • Pravda

      That would be scientists

      August 11, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
    • Peter Grenader

      Brainiac: Your argument is ridiculous. Without having to teach you chance theory and the real concept behind what you're completely misquoting, try opening a science or biology book before spouting off nonsense like this.

      August 12, 2011 at 2:46 am |
  74. Mach

    One day we will discover that we are not the only living things in the universe. If it is ever proven that we are alone, we will quickly find that the universe is an infinite waste of space and showered on race of inherently ungrateful beings.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
  75. Brainiac

    So does this mean, the previotic soup concept of Abiogenesis is all crap?!

    August 11, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
    • Brainiac

      meant "prebiotic"...

      August 11, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
    • You

      No, it doesn't.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
  76. GloLin

    Okay, if humans arose from apes and God probably doesn't really exist, where did space come from? Matter came from somewhere. Maybe God existed beyond infinity and as hard as it is to fathom what caused a speck of space dust can it not be as hard to fathom a God (all of you scientific non-believers)? I think of God as the greatest research scientist ever, creating our vast universe and then sitting back for millions and millions of years collecting outcome data. Maybe God is waiting for that big "aha" moment and when it comes his great sigh of relief will blow creation away into a new realm of existence. Hmmmm.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
    • bob

      Why do you religious folk always ask where time and matter came from, but it doesn't bother you that a God "just existed". Where did god come from ? Maybe matter "just existed"

      August 11, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
    • Me

      Or not.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
    • gs081

      If 'god' were all that big and powerful, he wouldn't pay much attention to our incredibly insignificant existence in an unimaginably huge universe.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    • R

      Why do religious arguments always come from a 2 or 3 dimensional perspective? If God does exist, do you think he would confine himself merely to our insignificant dimension? As for the question of where God came from and how is he just "there"; perhaps there are things beyond our scope of imagination that can answer that. It's ignorant how these arguments always take place with the assumption that God lives inside of our "box".

      August 11, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
    • bob

      @R. My question was in response to the first posters question. Do you not get what I'm trying to say ? Maybe matter just exists and it many forms are not confined to our "box". My point is that it can be asked of either side.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
    • Tom

      Because, Bob, to ask questions like this displays humbleness. An acknowledgement that some things are beyond human understanding. That human knowledge has limitations. Such simple questions, yet mankind has no answers. To suggest that we know the answers would also suggest that we understand the mind of God, which would be beyond arrogant. Human knowledge has come a long way, but it's important to remember how much we simply do not understand.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
      • bob

        You are still totally missing my point. Maybe there is no God. If you can ask where matter came from, then you need to be able to ask where God came from. The fact that either one just exists is equally baffling. If a God could just be then certainly matter could just be.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:56 am |
    • Rick from LA

      You live with the notion that all things are created, have a begining and a ending. You have no concept of perpetual existence. Organism have life cycles the universe does.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
    • Str8whtguy

      GloLin: I'm an atheist, but I consider myself spiritual. You've got an excellent (though somewhat convoluted) argument. I'd love to sit down with you in a cafe over a beer and really hash it out.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
  77. lwzrght

    DNA on asteroids does not disprove the existence of God any more than a Big Bang. Eventually some of my religion will realize that science is the paint and canvas for God.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
    • Douglas

      Nobody is trying to disprove the existence of God. You are the one that asserts this thing exists, so the onus is on you to come up with some credible evidence. Credible, ok?

      August 11, 2011 at 8:41 pm |
      • Jasper

        Actually, the atheist religion is the belief of the non-existence of God so they also have an onus to defend. No God? Great... prove it!

        August 11, 2011 at 9:54 pm |
    • Mark C

      Eventually maybe you'll realize that there is no artist, and the painting paints itself.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
      • Nyack5821

        @MarkC: Then I guess we can chuck out that whole "causality" argument that those silly scientists like to espouse.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
  78. Steve

    This obvious proof of God. God sent his christian aliens, the NOTW crowd to tamper with meteorite to confuse scientist and lead the people astray. He also crashed the world economy because of homosexuals. Also, God told me we get cancer for voting democrat.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
    • T N A

      No we get cancer to weed out the idiots on this planet like you.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:49 pm |
      • Peter Grenader

        I think this was satiric. I hope

        August 12, 2011 at 2:40 am |
  79. sj81

    Brought up in a strict Christian culture and self-matured to be open-minded, I personally feel this brings us one step closer to proving both sides (creation -vs- evolution) have been mostly right. Unlike most Christians, I don't believe the Bible is perfect nor literal. Transcribed and interpreted by man it leaves itself vulnerable. I believe we were created by a higher power (God) through an extremely complicated and long-lasting process which includes many modern science theories. For example, rather than the literal "created by the dust of the ground in a single day" of the Bible it could be more of a "evolved from space debris over the course of a single period of time". No one will know until we die. And by then it will be too late. If you have faith, hold on to it – but don't judge others. Keep an open mind if you truly care about your fellow man/woman. Peace.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
    • Tom

      Stop being so reasonable.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:41 pm |
    • Blepta

      I agree. I think it is dangerous to worship the Bible, or to worship the Church. I follow in the path of Jesus as best as I can and worship God. This sort of scientific discovery only strengthens that.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • You

      Creationism (or ID) has never been right. This continues to prove that it's been wrong.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
      • Cricket

        How does it prove that?

        August 12, 2011 at 12:05 am |
    • Wendy Jane

      Your post was the only one I could read that didn't make me cringe.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
  80. jordan

    Sorry but God did not create this world nor did he create life.Little by little we advance in science and uncover the real truth of our wonderful universe.
    Someday if our species even makes it we will meet other beings from other star systems.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
    • Jlarrald

      Very true.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
  81. brad

    Maybe it was a genie. Those are real too right? I mean if angels and devils, god and jesus are real then why can't space aliens and genies be real? We cant prove those either so by the same logic genies are real too. I must be true, I read about it in a book.

    August 11, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
    • Paula_D

      I think that "space aliens" probably are real. I mean, it's a big universe. Do you really feel we're all alone?

      August 11, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
  82. HotSnax

    Where's your god NOW, fundies?

    August 11, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
    • JFT

      Won't make any difference to the fundies, HotSnax. They'll just stick their fingers in their ears and scream "Ain't so! Lawd, Lawd, Lawd!" to drown out the voice of reason.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • BoneZ

      He's in the same place he always has been...trying to get you and JFT to get your fingers out of your ears.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
      • Mark C

        Really - he's trying to get their fingers out of their ears? How is it that an allegedly omnipotent being can fail?

        August 11, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
  83. waldo

    So after a meteorite hits 1000 degrees Farenheit or more there's DNA left? Ok !!!

    August 11, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • JoeyJoeyJoeJoeCornwallJunior

      adenine and guarine are not destroyed those temps...

      August 11, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Qiox

      Actually, only the outer 1 or 2 mm of the surface of the meteor gets heated. Remember that before entering the atmosphere it has spent millions of years at near absolute zero temperature, through and through. The few seconds it spends entering the atmosphere does not have time to heat up anything more than a thin layer of it's surface. You could pick up a meteor immediately after it hits the ground and it wouldn't feel hot, or cold for that matter.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • SFC Mike

      The leading surfaces can hit several thousand degrees on atmospheric entry, but the meteorites partially vaporize and break up, so what you have on earth are pieces of what were interior or trailing surfaces, and they never reached those temperatures.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
    • Mahhn

      The way I read it, this paticular DNA is formed in the metor. The greater story is that there are more known ways besides replication that DNA can form.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:26 pm |
    • Emmanuel Goldstien

      Its not DNA. Read the article (or pick up a 9th grade bio book). They are two of the 'ingredients' of DNA. Big difference. And the other poster is correct, high temps do not affect them the exact same way (not to mention, there were parts of the earth that were 'normal' temps.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
    • Pen808

      Wow. waldo was just schooled by science! Imagine that!

      August 11, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
    • Peter Grenader

      look up 'extremites'. we've got organisms on earth surviving those temps in undersea hydro vents.

      August 12, 2011 at 2:38 am |
  84. laskerknight

    Here is one for You religious Kook's .Why did God ask Adam Who told him He was naked .. Shouldn't God already should of known ..Huummmmhhhh!!!!!

    August 11, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • Ceri

      Would, what a deeply profound and impressive statement. Gosh, I'm overawed by your intellectual prowess!

      It is strange, though, that one someone should ask a rhetorical-type question and then simply not get the fact that God was also asking a rhetorical question.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:10 pm |
    • Vasco

      An even more intellectual question would be, given the omnipotence of God, omitting the argument of free will. God created Adam and Eve with the imperfection of deception. Following the understanding of his omnipotence God knew unquestionably the deception that would occur, however fully understanding this God created Adam and Eve in his own image. Does this lead to the argument that God is deceptive?

      August 11, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
      • H in Texas

        OOOOOOOOOH...... Touche'. But don't mix logic into this. It scares the natives.

        August 11, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
    • Mahhn

      LOL

      August 11, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
    • Brainiac

      "Shouldn't God already should of known". This sentence is wrong at so many levels.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
  85. CPRingling

    I love the study of both science and religion and i am a christian scientist (look it up before commenting). Much of the bible has actually been proven factual or possible including neogenesis while nearly everything we once knew of science has been proven wrong either totally or partially such as the plasma creation theory or the entire field of psycology so why dismiss it without at least learning it. 148 IQ and former military intel.

    August 11, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • Z

      Youre right... God created all beings 10000 years ago and the Dinosaurs died off 5000 years ago... Science and Religion simply do not mix!!!

      August 11, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
      • Ceri

        Z, science and religion relate together very nicely indeed. Science is simply the study of how God arranged things.

        August 11, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
      • H in Texas

        @ OP and Z......

        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

        August 11, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
    • Conky2012

      Many parts of the bible have been proven true? Like which ones? The only thing I have seen proven is that the bible adapted its older stories from sumerian culture. This is a proven fact.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
      • Richard

        As opposed to an "unproven fact?" BTW, your "free gift" is ready.

        August 11, 2011 at 8:50 pm |
    • Anythings Possible

      What do you think about the possibility that extraterrestrial life forms may have visited our planet in the past and combined their or other DNA with the existing homo erectus thus forming modern day man? This could explain the missing link. I am being serious. If we had the technology to travel to other worlds, we would do the same thing.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • Buster

      What's psycology mean, Mr. Christian Scientist? I've never heard of that word. The whole bible is actually true...except the part that says god exists.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
      • Trevor

        Your emotions are hindering reasonable dialogue. Stop being so emotional

        August 11, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
      • Paula_D

        My cat is named Buster! :)

        August 11, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
    • disco_fever

      Not a bad post until you declared all of psychology had been debunked. How silly – Even more silly considering it was debunked by a church. I never understood your religions distaste for psychology.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
    • pn

      Yeah, let's add Geology, Continental Drift and Particle Physics to the set of "myths" and "hoaxes" that Liberals have spread in order to scare people.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • Allison

      Not believing in the field of psychology is pretty hard evidence that you may need someone in that field. Studying how the mind works has helped thousands of people with mental impairments and brain injuries. Psychologists are the people who helped your friends and family members recover from strokes if they have suffered from those horrible moments in life. You need to read more literature that is not handed out by your church. Denying things like that only promote your ignorance.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
    • Jordan

      If the entire field of psychology is wrong, then why do you put any stock in your IQ score?

      August 11, 2011 at 8:50 pm |
    • Odds

      An IQ of 148 says nothing about the knowledge you possess. A person could have an IQ of 200, but with inadequate exposure to factual information, they would remain ignorant. Further, you may be deficient in certain areas relative to others, which cannot be accounted for with a single quantifier.

      Your misconceptions on the nature of scientific study suggest that, while you certainly may be intelligent, you're fairly ignorant of scientific method. Scientific method is not designed to be infallible. The results it produces are insufficient to the standard of definitive proof. At best, all the scientific method can produce is a result that has yet to be precluded by a negative. Successive studies further strengthen the pattern of assumptions, but even with thousands of supporting facts and studies which fail to preclude the theory, scientific method can never rule out the possibility of a negative.

      This is why scientists so often clash with theists. The trouble with theism is that it is not based in knowledge. Rather it is based upon belief – which is why it is known as faith. It works in exactly the opposite vein as scientific method. It begins with a positive assumption (God exists) and utilizes the absence of a negative (prove that God does NOT exist) as justification. This is a logical fallacy. It is impossible to prove a negative. To a scientific mind, it's not that God definitely does NOT exist, rather it's that no factual information exists to support the conclusion that He does.

      Hardware store employee. 149 IQ.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:14 pm |
    • Mark C

      You're seriously citing military "intelligence" as evidence of actual intelligence? You realize those are two utterly distinct usages of the word, right? Same with "Christian Science," which could not be further from acual science.

      You have an IQ of 148 like my dog has a nobel prize in physics.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
  86. Dudley4018

    Always interesting, science. Fascinating, actually.

    It is also interesting that so much science is apparently aimed at trying to prove that God is nothing more than a misunderstood scientific mystery. It seems queer to me that organized science would spend so much time and energy elaborating on what appears to be their views on completely non-scientific philosophy and religion.

    If science were truly non-prejudicial in its pursuits, would it not search for truth and knowledge, sterilize and catalog it, and leave the interpretation to those of the future who spend their scientific lives interpreting highly specialized subject matter?

    Or perhaps they are busily trying to prove that there is no God so that everyone must listen to, heed (worship) them?

    A thought.

    August 11, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • ScienceWins

      Science is always, by definition, non-predudicial. Pious blowhards such as Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, find their place in the presumptuous department quite often when it comes to science.

      In both faith and science, the entity may be used for good or, conversely, personal gain.

      August 11, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • Ancient Curse

      Nothing so sinister, Dudley, I am sure. Your point was actually discussed on Discovery the other night, in a roundtable discussion following the Curiosity program with Dr. Hawking that has received so much attention lately. One of the people in the forum was asked why science spends time refuting the existence of a higher being.

      The scientist responded that once the idea of God exerts itself into theory, by suggesting that God would have an effect on how things work, then the idea of God must be taken into consideration. They ask "Could this be God?" and in doing so, they try to find an answer.

      More often than not, that answer does not jive with theology, and the debate continues...

      August 11, 2011 at 8:13 pm |
    • DataBoy

      Balderdash.

      It is impossible to prove a negative; that's not science, just a fact. No time - NONE - is spent by any real scientist trying to proving negatives. That's an oxymoron.

      Your assertion that organized science spends so much time on this is baffling. Is this as opposed to unorganized science? And what time do you submit comprises "so much". Other than a few statements in passing and the occasional free thinker, science and scientists pretty much ignore the subject of mysticism, preferring instead to focus fact-based reality.

      Adjust your hat - the tinfoil has come loose.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:13 pm |
    • ThatOneDude

      Perhaps you are just completely ignorant of the numerous attacks on science which are being waged by various religions right now. Perhaps you are also completely ignorant of the devastating impact that irrational beliefs like religion have on those who have to desire to follow such superstitious claptrap. Perhaps you are ignorant of the wretched history of the destruction of people and ideas that religion has fostered over the long centuries. I will grant you all of those things for the sake of argument. But, then, that just makes you completely ignorant, so what would be the point in even talking to you? If you can't see why secular society is fighting your cancerous beliefs, then you are just willfully blind.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
    • Odds

      On the contrary, science asks very specific questions and the existence of God is not among them. However, CNN is not science. They're in the business of convincing you to click on links. Issues that people tend to be very passionate about (such as religion and by extension the origins of life) are their bread and butter.

      This news suggests nothing other than that the essential components of DNA are found elsewhere in the universe. If you believe that God created DNA and used it to produce life on Earth and nowhere else, then this may present a bit of a dilemma for you.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
    • Mark C

      Could you possibly be a bigger imbecile?

      August 11, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
    • Mark C

      "If science were truly non-prejudicial in its pursuits, would it not search for truth and knowledge, sterilize and catalog it, and leave the interpretation to those of the future who spend their scientific lives interpreting highly specialized subject matter?"

      This is sheer idiocy. It doesn't even have any meaning. Good god, man, you are one dumb indivitual. Why do you think "interpreting" evidence is not part of searching for truth. On what date are scientists supposed to stop "sterilizing truth and knowledge (??)" and start interpreting? I guess we just pick a date. OK, scientists, no interpreting, only sterilizing, until January 25, 2048.

      August 11, 2011 at 10:04 pm |
    • glennrobert

      Science is not trying to prove anything about God. The concept is not testable therefore has nothing to do with science!

      August 12, 2011 at 1:29 am |
  87. Moi

    Greetings, carbon-based bipeds!

    August 11, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
  88. Seraphim0

    wow, ntm, Made by God- ignorant much?

    August 11, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • ScienceWins

      1) Reply button: use it.
      2) Instead of attacking others for their ignorance, why don't you be helpful and bring something intellectual to the discussion?

      August 11, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
      • Ancient Curse

        Thank you, Science Wins. That needed to be said.

        Don't you get the feeling that our individual "Internet personas" are boiling over into our day-to-day lives? Terrifying.

        August 11, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
  89. minisheree32

    alrighty then. thats new.

    August 11, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
  90. InvisibleEvidenced

    I may be one of the few here, but I absolutely understand science and spirit to go hand in hand. When creationism is discussed and explained as the earth being dark, void and without form, and creation being spoken, willed or commanded into existance, I can see the explosion of matter, water, light, and planets as being a pretty enourmous and messy type of event. The idea of it all falling randomly into place so perfectly as to allow for all of the various life on this planet alone to come to fruition spontaneously without an organized direction is assinine. You must have creation before something can be made. Milk must be created in the cow before you can use it make a loaf of bread. This world is the same. Matter was formed, and then it was used. Of course it had to contain all of the building blocks that make it work. Of course it had to contain the DNA of life just like this earth did...just like reproduction. It is possible to undertand that physical things and spiritual things work in tandem and that physical things are here to evidence the invisiible or spiritual things (i.e., Romans 1:19-20). I don't believe blind faith is ever recommended...prove all things. Science is how we do that. Science does not show evidence of evolution from one species into a new species, but does show evidence of evolution within the same species. The miracle of reproduction alone, the formation of bones and hair and organs and nails and eyelashes, when none of those materials was present in the womb to begin with should be a good starting place. Why couldn't we expect that the earth was once also impregnated with miraculous life the same way...with the introduction of DNA from an outside source? This makes perfect sense without discounting the concept of creationism.

    August 11, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
    • standingwave

      Actually,there is very good fossile evidence showing the transition from dinosaur to modern bird.

      August 11, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • Ancient Curse

      I like Spinoza's take on the whole thing - Nature is God. Nature is a supreme power that defines who we are and what we do. It gives us life and it smites us from the Earth. It is as awe-inspiring as it is terrifying, and we are essentially powerless against it. Sound familiar? But no one likes to feel powerless. Religion fills that gap. It gives Nature a face, and a method of communication. Neat, huh!

      August 11, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • Burt47

      After eight years of George and three of Barack, how can anyone question the possibility that humanity might very well derive from a random accident in space?

      August 11, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
    • Veritas

      There are thousands of transitional fossils….
      I get tired of the xians always saying there are no transitional….research your claim.

      August 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
      • ThatOneDude

        Veritas,
        If they were inclined to do actual research, they wouldn't be posting ignorant drivel on CNN in the first place.

        August 11, 2011 at 8:26 pm |
      • InvisibleEvidenced

        I am not a christian...so your assumption is wrong. I never said transitional fossils did not exist. As stated, evolution has been proven to exist, but the DNA from one fossil to the next remains basically the same..which is how they understand it to be transitional. How do you think they determine one fossil from another? The species may evolve within itself...perhaps from an ancient avian dinosaur into a modern bird...however, the DNA does not transition from say a reptile into a mammal. The evolutionary process obviously exists scientfically, but perhaps it is you who should do a bit more in depth research scientifically before making critical judgements on anothers research or religion.

        August 12, 2011 at 11:31 am |
    • Frostiken

      "The idea of it all falling randomly into place so perfectly as to allow for all of the various life on this planet alone to come to fruition spontaneously without an organized direction is assinine."

      And see, that's where you're wrong, and why most educated folks click their tongues, roll their eyes, and ignore the creationists, because they don't actually understand what they're arguing against.

      Let me put it this way – there are 8 planets in our solar system (sorry, Pluto). Exactly one of them has life on it. The other seven do not. Statistically this means that there's only a 12% chance of life on other planets (okay, it depends on a lot more than that, but still). If all this 'created' life hadn't 'randomly' formed, you would not be around to talk about it. And it's not random. Evolution ensures that the growth and transition of life forms always progresses in a manner that makes sense – that which helps survival. This is why you don't have cows with eyeballs on their feet.

      Finally, what even makes you say that life on this planet *isn't* abnormal and imperfect? The only reason you could possibly think so is because for the last 3 million years humans have been evolving on this planet and therefore you're ingrained to 'know' what is natural. Have you ever set foot on a planetary body besides Earth? Have you ever seen what kind of life develops on other planets? So how can you compare what *you* find 'natural' when the only thing you've ever seen is the natural environment humans have evolved in and have changed themselves?

      Creationists are dumb.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
  91. ScienceWins

    Just to clarify, Adenine and Guanine is not equal to DNA by any stretch of meaning. While I'll be happy to admit the significance of nucleic building blocks found and likely created on meteroites, this is a LONG shot from saying anything about DNA. I felt that the title of this article was a little misleading. While the Miller/Urey experiment has been in some ways criticized because of their inability to correctly model earth's atmosphere in pre-history, the results of this experiment indicate the potential that nucleic bases–like adenine–can be formed here on earth.

    Sorry NASA, but I'm not ready to believe at this point that space rocks are the best source for life's origins.

    August 11, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
  92. xs10tl

    Gee, such divinely inspired wisdom:

    "So first I was a meteorite, then a monkey? I'm starting to catch on."
    "So now we're decendent from rocks instead of apes? I think I like the ape idea better...:)"

    Stereotypical creationist / ID responses. As usual, people who do not understand, and do not *want* to understand Evolutionary Theory LEAP to the most extreme conclusion possible in an attempt to knock it down. Or better yet, set up a straw man argument. Much easier than trying to discredit over a century of research and evidence gathered across multiple disciplines and universally accepted in the scientific community.

    If you didn't have the attention span of a gnat, you would have noticed the line in this article which states:
    "The discovery suggests that similar meteorites and comets may have impacted Earth and *assisted in life formation here."*

    Building blocks for DNA + the right conditions (water, temperature, etc) on Earth + millions and millions of years = growth of life.

    I realize it's just easier to just say "God did it" as a response to everything and move on. But if that was our answer to every question that has actually been answered by scientific research we would still be living in the Dark Ages, and would not be having this argument.

    I often wonder if creationists / ID ers would actually be happier if that was the state of the world.

    August 11, 2011 at 3:35 pm |
    • InvisibleEvidenced

      I have yet to meet a scientist who sees any true merit in the "Theory" of evolution, since most of the ideas of this theory have been discounted by "over a century of research and evidence gathered across multiple disciplines and universally accepted in the scientific community". The laws of thermodynamics alone discount the idea of an expolsion which is chaos, resulting in order, which is necessary to build life. There is an element of "blind faith" in this belief system, as it doesn't work well when you get to the foundation of it scientifically. It is like saying that a computer just formed itself in the right circumstances with all of the parts and codes written in to make it function. I have never seen ingredients left alone together, without any assisted manipulation, result in an organized object of matter. Science does not evidence this, just as it does not prove evolution as the beginning of human life, but only as an adaptive process contained within a species.

      Just looking at the function and structure of the Atom, the basic building block for all matter, and the intricacies of each part, and the immeasurable amount of space contained within...that is humbling. The more I learn scientifically...the more I am certain that there is a divine order to these things.

      Not all creationists just accept a blind concept of order and structure. Some of us actually see science as a good way to understanding spiritual things, evidence invisible things, and build faith without being led by ignorant religious leaders. Some of us do find spiritual answers in scientific texts instead of behind the walls of a church. Some of us do understand that invisible things (i.e., oxygen) can exist, even though we can't prove that with any of our 5 senses. Science gives me faith.

      August 11, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
      • Educated1

        Although a scientific theory is not equal to fact, it is by far > religious fiction. Sorry your mythology doesn't hold up :-(

        August 11, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
      • ThatOneDude

        I would ask for a citation for your outrageously silly claims, but it's pretty clear that you haven't the faintest clue about science in general and evolution in particular. Why don't you go out, read a book by someone who isn't a complete moron and come back when you have acquired aforementioned clue?

        August 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
      • H in Texas

        I love it when they try to use big boy words and concepts. It is so cute.

        August 11, 2011 at 8:41 pm |
      • InvisibleEvidenced's_High_School_Science_ teacher

        I'm so so so very sorry i failed you in every possible way, Please for your own sake due some research on subject matter that actually comes from scientific journals and the like. You are making me look bad. stop taking a book designed to instill ethics and morals literally.

        August 11, 2011 at 8:53 pm |
      • shamgar50

        You started your post with an outright lie. No need to read the rest.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
      • Paula_D

        Darwin's incredibly sloppy research is well-documented in the scientific community. While he built compelling arguments around the evolution of species, he provides ZERO research or intelligent discourse about the origin of species. In other words, where and how did the first cell begin? Scientists have been trying to solve this one for years. I mean, after all, how effing hard can it be to create some primordial soup in the lab, then run an electric current through it and get ....LIFE!? We say we know how life formed but can't prove it. Until that day occurs, Darwinists have about as much of my attention as Fundamentalists. (In other words, not much.)

        August 11, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
      • Peter Grenader

        Wow... THAT was ridiculous.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:15 am |
      • Peter Grenader

        Paula: You don"t need to create life to prove how it happened. How effing hard is it? Real effing hard, that's why life, or even the proof of life is so effing hard find in trillionth of the universe we've been able to explore in the four billions years since we evolved from single cell animals.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:23 am |
      • InvisibleEvidenced

        Some of the comments are so mean, it must be those of you who think of yourselves as nothing more than accidental meat, who find it acceptable to sit anonymously behind your keyboard and send hateful messages to strangers. You never know who you may be disrespecting, but since you have nothing to look forward to, nothing to answer for, no soul to speak of, I suppose that makes it ok to sit back and judge the opinions of those around you, when you see all of humanity as nothing more than flesh with no purpose.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
      • InvisibleEvidenced

        @shamgar50...my post began "I have yet to meet a scientist..." That is a lie? You remember who I have met? Can you tell me which scientist I have met who makes me out to be a liar? My posts are only my opinions...I promise I am not commenting on CNN with the hopes of changing any minds...just wanted to put my little bitty 2 cents into an interesting topic. Calm down.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
      • Peter Grenader

        Invisible: I love it: You call ppl mean, and then go on to call them soulless. A little hypocrisy in your sermon?

        August 12, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
  93. Steve

    Perhaps I am not understanding the significance of this discovery, but, if the Earth and everything on it formed from materials in space, then why is it a surprise that meteorites, also formed in space, contain the same materials? It would be a surprise to me if they didn't.

    August 11, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
    • Peter Grenader

      It's significant because scientist are finding proof of something which before was a scientific theory. Pardon my analog, but this would be for the fundamentalists out there like finding a large arc in the middle of the Sinai desert.

      August 12, 2011 at 3:13 am |
  94. Aaron

    Finally, a semi-decent science article from CNN! CNN gets a gold star for today in science. :-)

    To the point, this is exciting news! It makes sense that these astronomical objects would contain the elements necessary for life to develop. We know that all the heavy elements are created within a star and once the star dies and ejects much of its mass (provided it doesn't become a black hole) that matter eventually coalesces to form planetary nebulae conducive to star birth. And these asteroids and comets are remnants of the accretion disk (containing a fore mentioned heavy elements) in which our sun and planet formed. This is also why it is said, "we are all made of stars" as every element that makes up everything was once formed inside a star.

    The universe is my god, as it is infinitely complex and amazingly harmonious and from such I am in awe of its magnificence.

    August 11, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • Aloka

      "The universe is my god, as it is infinitely complex and amazingly harmonious and from such I am in awe of its magnificence."

      beautifully put. my thoughts exactly.

      August 12, 2011 at 7:10 pm |
  95. Barbarella

    Who are any of you to argue HOW God started life on earth. Even the scientists agree that in the beginnig the earth was without form. We are stardust.

    August 11, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
    • sumday

      science and the bible are 2 heads of the same coin. the bible says God did something and science say this is how God did it. God never tells us how he did something just as science can never tell the reason something was done.

      August 11, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
      • Aaron

        that's not entirely true. science can sometimes tell you why something was done.. we call it causality. for every effect there is a cause, just some causes are a little more elusive and that is why we have science to explore these questions. :-)

        August 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
      • pn

        This is complete nonsense. Science is defined by some sort of methodology. Without getting into details, one important component is that a scientific theory should be refutable.

        August 11, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
      • Peter Grenader

        That's ridiculous. The very essence of science is proof. Theories of science are clearly marked on the warning labels (that's a metaphor, don't stone me).

        August 12, 2011 at 3:09 am |
    • Don

      We are golden? We are billion year old carbon? Wow. Great lyrics for a song Joni. :D

      August 11, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
    • SB

      Barbarella, the question "Who are any of you to argue HOW God started life?" is bad theology. REALLY bad theology, and I'll explain why. The closer god's methods resembles nature the less relevant god becomes with respect to creation. If we have a natural explanation for something and that explanation is allegedly how "god dun it" then what use is god? God becomes an unnecessary component and should therefore logically be culled by Occam's Razor. So to safeguard his namesake believers forgo lore and retreat god to the unknown. The problem with that course is that the more we understand about the universe around us the fewer places god can logically exist. Thus a deistic faith represents an ever-shrinking god, not the sort of all powerful being the world's major faiths believe in general. Unfortunately the reason why this is bad theology is the SAME reason why we're seeing growing concentrations of Christian fundamentalism with its anti-science agenda pushing any and all paranoid delusions they can to keep the flock protected from the sin of knowledge, because at the heart of it they understand that once you know the truth you can never go back. I call fundamentalism "good theology" not in the sense that it is beneficial (it's not!) but in the sense that it's surviving in a hostile environment; maintaining bubbles of ignorance in a society that covets information. If we assume that religion is on its way out then the people who maintain questions like "Who are any of you to argue HOW God started life?" will disappear long before the fundamentalists due simply to their honesty and the fundamentalists lack of.

      August 12, 2011 at 2:38 am |
      • Peter Grenader

        The unfortunate truth is organized religion is becoming swiftly antiquated and seriously needs the big re-think if it expects to survive the attention of the 21st century mindset.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:53 am |
      • Pat

        Well I don't necessarily agree with her argument. But I have to say something else. God can logically exist in a scientific world. Who's to say that he can't operate within the laws of his own creation. The fundamentalists reject science because they believe what you say to be true is true; that God exists only in the unknown and created the universe according to the story of Genesis. He DID create the universe according to the story but its not as if the story were a literal scientific history. To read into a non historical text would be eisegesis. It wasn't until the ideas of evolution came out that people started to consider the creation story as a literal story. They did it to counter science. So your argument is correct in some ways, but theologically, scientific discoveries like this do not disprove or diminish God in any way. In fact, I think as our understanding of the universe increases, the intricacy of God's creation becomes more apparent and even greater in our minds! Reason is not the antithesis of faith.

        August 15, 2011 at 1:14 am |
      • stormsun

        Pat, thank you for stating your views reasonably and logically. It is not so much that reason is incompatible with faith – it is that reason is incompatible with unquestioning belief, without any physical, objective evidence, such as doctrine based entirely on the accounts of personal "revelations."

        August 15, 2011 at 3:11 am |
  96. Chemistry

    "So first I was a meteorite, then a monkey? I'm starting to catch on."
    "So now we're decendent from rocks instead of apes? I think I like the ape idea better...:)"

    Would love to see your research that proves god! At there these scientists are trying to come up with logical answers, whereas religous people stand certain to something that has withstood no testing! Try making some comments that aren't quoted in ignorance.

    August 11, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • Someday..

      They have tried to prove it wrong, and have failed every time.

      August 11, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
      • Elaborate

        Please elaborate then. You show no data!

        August 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • Steve

      @Chemistry
      Science, by definition, is limited to inferences made from the observable, and the existence of God can't be proven or disproven. Stating that God does not exist is equally as "ignorant" as stating that God does exist. Attacking people for their personal beliefs is pointless. You haven't changed anyone's opinion, and your statements only serve to upset people. Why do that? Be secure in your own views and let it go.

      August 11, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
      • Everything's relative.

        It is not ignorant to state that God does not exist. That would be like saying it's ignorant to state "rocks can talk." It's difficult to definitively prove that something is impossible because there's no evidence! However, if you are going to say something is possible, you better have some evidence to back it up. I can not say for sure that there is NOT a God, just as someone else can not say for sure that there IS a God. However, I would win that argument every time based on the complete and utter lack of evidence they have provided. It just depends how far you're willing to allow your mind to go to accept things that should be impossible, and I'm not willing to let my mind (or it's not willing to let me?) believe something based on absolutely nothing.

        August 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
      • garderner

        state one can always state that as of now, there is no evidence of god as claimed by theists, and thus he/she can state god does not exist. It's quite rational to say talking snake does not exist. Haven't seen one, caught one, eaten one.. thus we can reasonably state that talking snakes are only human imaginary.

        August 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
      • Pat

        There is evidence for God's existence. Read Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

        August 15, 2011 at 1:17 am |
      • stormsun

        Thomas Aquinas' arguments are often cited, but are full of logical fallacies and prove nothing. I would not undertake the ridiculous task of proving a negative, like "God does not exist" (which I could no more do than YOU could prove Odin, Zeus or Baal does not exist), the burden of actual objective proof falls upon those who make the claim. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." You offer the simplistic arguments of a 13th century Catholic monk (no bias there, eh?) as "proof" of God? Please. If you are content and happy in your beliefs, I suggest you leave it at that and don't get into debates about whether God exists or not. Unless of course, your goal is to reassure yourself, but you don't need others for that.

        August 15, 2011 at 3:36 am |
    • Arran Webb

      "... quoted in ignorance." You mean coated in ignorance. But anyhow go Google the "selection effect" and see how science is largely as subjective as any past theory of the universe.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:38 pm |
  97. Jimmy Cracorn

    Cool. I can't wait till we find life in a place other than earth.

    August 11, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
    • Paula_D

      That won't happen until we find intelligence here first. (Don't hold your breath).

      August 11, 2011 at 10:11 pm |
      • McM

        are you people psychisist or scientist? either way, is this something palpable to you? human's are so self-righteous, we aren't meant to figure out everything. people are naive enough to base their beliefs in alien life force based upon something like this being released. what has this world come to? just because you go get a college edu & research things, doesn't mean our concepts actually have meaning as to why we are here, we are purely speculating...
        i am free of compromise by the human mind. please, save yourself the trouble & stay humbled.

        August 12, 2011 at 3:43 am |
      • Peter Grenader

        Bravo, Good one

        August 12, 2011 at 3:55 am |
  98. ntm91307

    So now we're decendent from rocks instead of apes? I think I like the ape idea better...:)

    August 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
    • Arran Webb

      I was watching Space Odyssey 2001 and it is clearly depicted that we are descendant from a large rectangular monolith.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:40 pm |
    • MNdoc

      you should be posting in the 'beliefs' section, not the science section because it's clear that you don't understand this.

      August 12, 2011 at 1:43 am |
      • Peter Grenader

        MNdoc: Through the use of the smiley face, it was cleae (to me, anyway lol) that the comment was meant as sarcasm. Relex!

        August 12, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • Janie Bauman

      Well kinda, if God of space had taken space rock to form the dust into the 1st human man and this would explain why man always has their mind in the dirt! HA! Just clowning around.

      September 11, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
  99. Made by God

    So first I was a meteorite, then a monkey? I'm starting to catch on.

    August 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
    • Robrob

      We can only pray that was your idea of a joke and you aren't really that dense.

      August 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
      • Mark C

        Don't make any assumptions, Rob.

        August 11, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
    • jimmymax

      I think he just insulted monkeys.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:12 pm |
      • MNdoc

        and meteorites

        August 12, 2011 at 1:45 am |
  100. god

    My little gift to you..... cheers!

    August 11, 2011 at 9:28 am |
    • JusDav

      LOL. Kind of what the angels said to mary. "behold you are with child" . I understand that to mean that prior to the information given to mary, she did not know she was with child. Meaning she was impregnated without her prior knowledge (probably meaning without her prior consent asLOL. Kind of what the angels said to mary. "behold you are with child" . I understand that to mean that prior to the information given to mary, she did not know she was with child. Meaning she was impregnated without her prior knowledge (probably meaning without her prior consent as well). Kinda sounds like rape to me, but what do I know.
      little things that people tell me about the bible do not make sense. maybe it is just me. the god dude to abraham.... I will give you all if you kill your son.... the devil dude to the christ dude prior to cross nailing day... I will give you all if you join me. to me that sounds like the same deal. I wonder ... that is all. Oh yes, that abraham dude kinda crapped on his wife with the mistress to have a child. then all of a sudden the mistress disappears from the story. then good ole abe dude gets wifey preggers and the two half siblings form the warring tribes of the old world. does not sound like a benevolent being to me. stirs up lots of unneeded troubles and strife for the beings he supposedly created. sry bout spelling and such, but if my message gets across... good enough for me.
      god is not dead, he never existed in the first place. too much BS in the bible book for me to be a believer. "fear him?"..no thanks.
      well). Kinda sounds like rape to me, but what do I know.
      little things that people tell me about the bible do not make sense. maybe it is just me. the god dude to abraham.... I will give you all if you kill your son.... the devil dude to the christ dude prior to cross nailing day... I will give you all if you join me. to me that sounds like the same deal. I wonder ... that is all. Oh yes, that abraham dude kinda crapped on his wife with the mistress to have a child. then all of a sudden the mistress disappears from the story. then good ole abe dude gets wifey preggers and the two half siblings form the warring tribes of the old world. does not sound like a benevolent being to me. stirs up lots of unneeded troubles and strife for the beings he supposedly created. sry bout spelling and such, but if my message gets accross... good enough for me.
      god is not dead, he never existed in the first place. too much BS in the bible book for me to be a beliver. "fear him"..no thanks.

      August 11, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
      • ScienceWins

        Ignoring the fact that your comment has absolutely NOTHING to do with nucleotides on meteors, I suggest you learn how to use a computer properly before making any grandiose statements about the universe.

        August 11, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
      • InvisibleEvidenced

        Oh JusDav you made me laugh! The bible can be very confusing and ignorant religions and leaders don't help. It is easy to discount it as fairy tales and BS without an understanding. Many times it can seem to contradict itself. I spent many years of my life avoiding it for that very reason...I now study it in depth in all of its forms and translations and I understand so much more on my own then I ever did sitting in church.

        I thought rape included some form of sex, and my understanding of the virgin birth was that the child was formed in eternity and then placed into the virgin womb. Revelation 13:8 talks about the Lamb slain since the foundation of the world...so he was formed in the realm of eternity and purposed to die before the world was even laid down. So in your way of thinking....this would seem more like an artificial insemination than an offspring of rape.

        Abrahams wife gave her handmaid to him since she was unable to bear him a child. This was not his idea but hers. His wife didn't become pregnant until the age of 90 and he was 100....so it is probably safe to say that she was convinced it wasn't happening for her. She later became angry because of actions taken by the other child and requested that the handmaid and the child be sent away. Because of this and through both of those children, Abraham's seed was multiplied greatly throughout the world...bringing the promise made to him to fruition.

        The promise given to Abraham was that his seed would be numerous, not that he would be given all...that his seed would be greatly blessed. This promise was made before he had any children....not when he was asked to kill Isaac. His faith allowed him to know that even if he killed his son, because of the promise that the earth would be filled with his seed, even if Isaac died, he would be resurrected. This is a story of faith.

        Satan is often shown trying to be like the most high. It is no surprise to see him making the same promises but his are lies...he has no power over life. This temptation was not on the day that he was crucified...it was while he wandered in the wilderness for 40 days. It had to happen to finish what was started when the israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. It was supposed to sound like the same deal....and you are supposed to understand that again...faith allowed the messiah to turn away from these lies and complete the circle. Most things you find in the new testament you also find in the old testament...the beginning of the matter, and the end of the matter. That it happens over and over is supposed to be your proof, your gift, if you didn't get it the first time, you will get another opportunity over and over and over until you do understand.

        I am sorry that you have been confused and no understanding has been found for you. Instead of Fear ...I would encourage you to Seek.

        August 11, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
      • queenbee

        nvisibleEvidenced– a little clarification:

        1. Jesus has several names–"The Word". "The Lamb","God's only begotten Son" "Son of God" etc–the ones that are pertinent here are The Word–Jesus is called the word because he is that part of the Godshead that must be declared (God the father/creator–thinks up something,God the Son–declares it.. and God the Holy Spirit –manifests it–this is the essence of faith.

        2. The bible states that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God. People think the bible is speaking of ONE God–but that word is like our word Government–we have 3 parts to our government but only one Government–so it is that we have 3 parts to the Godhead but only one God–but it is comprised of all 3.

        3. The essence of faith is __think it, declare it, and it will be so–same as the actions of the Godhead

        4. Jesus is also called the "lamb" because he volunteered Himself as the ultimate sacrifice–but to manifest physically on this plane and go through life he had to follow the rules which was –all beings manifested must be born of a woman and when exiting this plane, all "men" had to die–so Jesus agreed to be born of a woman just like every other person.

        A Virgin was chosen because the Holy Spirit (which put the seed of Christ in Mary's womb–cannot dwell in an unclean place–a female who had had previous sex would not be untouched or "clean"

        4. Haggar's child did not do anything and you will not find that in the bible. Once Sarah found out she could make her own child for her husband she forced Haggar to leave because she did not want competition to the lineage –in compensation, God said that from the seed of haggar and abraham a mighty nation would come–that is what is now Islam–but Hagar did nothing, Sarah just eliminated her competion after she used the woman and told her to go and lie with her husband. That portion of the bible which deals with the angels and heavens crying because God was going to destroy the world a second time due to no one being worthy to atone for sin and Jesus volunteering is in the old Testament. ONce he volunteered, the angels rejoiced–this is all scriptural–also, to underline the plurality of the God head, never forget in Genesis when God says "let us make man in our own image" he did not speak of making it int he image of angels which the bible later say were configured with the essence of fire not earth–he is speaking to the word and the comforter.

        August 12, 2011 at 4:14 am |
      • InvisibleEvidenced

        @queeenbee – A little more clarification

        1: There is one name given (Yahshua) – many names ascribed. Jesus was not even his name. Lamb, son, door...those were all describing him...not naming him. I am a daughter, mother, wife, teacher....but that is not my name.
        Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

        2: Trinity is a concept created by the churches...not even contained in the bible at all. The concept of the supernal nature or (godhead) as 3 seperate beings is essentially incorrect. 3 manifestations of one spirit...not the other way around. These three are one....not these three are three., Like steam, water, ice...three manifestations of One element.

        3. Faith is understanding and knowlege. Eternal life is predicated on your knowlege of invisible things.
        Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
        John 17:3 – And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

        Yahshua the Messiah was the fulfillment of the passover lamb, without blemish, killed (condemned) by the whole assembly, killed in the evening. The blood taken and struck on the two side posts (hands nailed) and the top post (crown of thorns), dipped from a basin of blood at the floor (feet nailed). It was to be eaten with unleavened bread (he had not yet risen) bitter herbs (vinegar fed to him on the cross). The lambs blood was the only salvation for the children of israel.

        4. Genesis 21:9-10 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
        Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

        Yahshua Messiah was the Word or Son in the beginning...purposed to die before the world was even formed. There is nothing stated in the bible that a seperate being Jesus was walking around heaven with the angels volunteering to save this lost world! He was formed within the realm of eternity right within the spirit of Yahweh, was seen by Moses, Aaron, Adab, Abihu and 70 elders atop Mt. Sinai, stepped into a physical body and walked with Moses (Joshua son of Nun), established the law, led the people of israel to their physical salvation in the land flowing with milk and honey, died, stepped into a physical body again, fulfilled the law, went through a death burial and resurrection, ascended, and was then poured out into the hearts and minds of men as the holy spirit, or the comforter.

        August 12, 2011 at 12:13 pm |
      • stormsun

        Personally, I prefer Greek mythology. More imaginative and better stories. Humankind believed in these gods for a very long time, also. I would like to know how Christians can prove Zeus does not actually rule the universe, along with Hera, Apollo, Aphrodite, and the rest of the Olympian pantheon. Until you can do that, don't ask modern day skeptics to "prove" the Christian god doesn't exist. The burden of proof, by the way, is always upon those who make extraordinary claims, not the other way around. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (Carl Sagan).

        August 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
      • Peter Grenader

        Excuse me... this is a discussion about science and discovery. If you wish to have a banter about religion, please do it in rooms reserved for that. Frankly, I find this a bit rude.

        April 1, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
    • jimmymax

      I see these articles attract the usual trailer park weirdos.

      August 11, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
      • Arran Webb

        You're here.

        August 11, 2011 at 11:35 pm |
      • Omi

        Why would it attract trailer park weirdo's? People in Trailer Parks are from an intellectual perspective, barely more intelligent
        than plankton. Which T Party trailer park are you from?

        August 12, 2011 at 2:06 am |
1 2 3

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer