top of page

The following article by Chris Ciaccia is a classic example
of how unqualified media collaborates with suppositional
science, causing credulous minds to accept the unproven as fact.

NASA was able to recreate
the origins of life and the results
are shocking

By Chris Ciaccia     |    Fox News     |     February 26, 2019

A photograph of NASA astrobiologists Laurie Barge and Erika Flores in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, astrobiologists who affirm that they have created in laboratory beakers conditions similar to those near fumaroles in the primordial sea.

Laurie Barge, left, and Erika Flores, NASA astrobiologists, in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
where, so they assure humanity, they have created in laboratory beakers conditions
similar to those they suppose existed near fumaroles, which they suppose formed
in the primordial sea that they suppose existed 4 billion years ago,
the number of years they assume the Earth to have from its
early phase to the present. There is no absolute proof any
of these four suppositions are anything but that.

Photograph and text added by Homer Dewayne Shappley. I insert numerous “Commentaries”
throughout the article by Chris Ciaccia.

Chris Ciaccia, of Fox News, writes

“A new NASA study has recreated the origins of life, building the ocean's floors from 4 billion years ago as humanity attempts to understand how life started on Earth and where else it might be found.”

Commentary by HDS. This sentence contains patent contradictions. If humanity still “attempts to understand how life started on Earth,” with what common sense or logic can it be categorically affirmed, as a fact, that “A new NASA study has recreated the origins of life?”

On the one hand, “…attempts to understand” and, on the other,  “has recreated the origins of life” constitute, unquestionably, an obvious contradiction. Humanity does not yet understand, 

“The water that issues from seafloor hydrothermal vents consists mostly of seawater drawn into the hydrothermal system close to the volcanic edifice through faults and porous sediments or volcanic strata, plus some magmatic water released by the upwelling magma. In contrast to the approximately 2 °C (36 °F) ambient water temperature at these depths, water emerges from these vents at temperatures ranging from 60 °C (140 °F) up to as high as 464 °C (867 °F).”

according to Mr. Ciaccia, “how life started on Earth.” Thus, neither NASA, nor the writer Chris Ciaccia, nor any other human being can assert that “the origins of life” have been, definitively, "recreated."

Such twisted information and false logic easily deceive the incautious, the credulous, or anyone lacking ample knowledge of these subjects, but NOT the clear mind, duly educated and strictly impartial.

Photograph of the sign of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, illustration for the document: NASA was able to recreate the origins of life and the results are shocking.

Neither NASA, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the writer Chris Ciaccia, nor any other entity or human being has the right to speak on behalf of all “humanity.” As if all humans, without exception, continue attempting to understand how life began on planet Earth.

As a matter of fact, the immense majority of humans attribute the origin of life to a Super Intelligent Creator, repudiating the 

speculative hypotheses of Darwinists evolutionists, atheists, secularists, and humanists of all kinds.

Discarding superstitions and distorted beliefs of people with little or no academic preparation, the force of serious arguments presented by multitudes of thoughtful, highly educated humans convinced of the existence of that Super Powerful Being are not minimized or ridiculed by impartial minds.

Chris Ciaccia writes: “The study, conducted by astrobiologists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looks at how life began in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor."

Commentary by HDS. With regard to the impressive title of “astrobiologists,” breaking it down, “biology” is “a branch of knowledge that deals with living organisms and vital processes.”” means star: heavens: outer space: astronomical.” The Sun, as an example of stars, “is a nearly perfect sphere of hot plasma heated to incandescence by nuclear fusion.”

“The temperature at the surface of the Sun is about 10,000 Fahrenheit (5,600 Celsius). The temperature rises from the surface of the Sun inward towards the very hot center of the Sun where it reaches about 27,000,000 Fahrenheit (15,000,000 Celsius).”

Given this data, how could it be remotely possible that “life,” in any form, could exist on the Sun, or within the Sun, applicable to any star? Adjudicating to oneself the high-sounding title of “astrobiologist” would seem to be, then, totally out of order, even “fantastical.” At least be a little more modest, taking the title of “exobiologist,” exobiology defined as “a branch of biology concerned with the search for life outside the earth and with the effects of extraterrestrial environments on living organisms.”

The clause looks at how life began, is, effectively, a plain, bald assertion that life did, in fact, begin in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.”

An aggravating lack of overwhelming proof to that effect should obligate honest scientists and writers to express themselves with more precision and reservation. At least to add the words “might have. The clause would then read: looks at how life MIGHT HAVE BEGUN.

Chris Ciaccia writes: "Understanding how far you can go with just organics and minerals before you have an actual cell is really important for understanding what types of environments life could emerge from," said Laurie Barge, the lead investigator, in a statement. "Also, investigating how things like the atmosphere, the ocean and the minerals in the vents all impact this can help you understand how likely this is to have occurred on another planet."

Commentary by HDSbefore you have an actual cell. Dear Laurie Barge, you and your co-religionists mix organics and minerals in a beaker and heat them to effect changes, but, never, never, NEVER have you been able, to date, to produce even one “actual cell!” That is, a cell that is alive. A LIVING CELL!

Why don’t you wait until you have done it before writing scientific papers and making grandiose declarations about “recreating the origins of life?” Then, there would be no cause for doubts, allegations of fraud, clever manipulations of elements, etc.

Chris Ciaccia writes: “Barge and her team were able to recreate the seafloor by filling beakers with mixtures that were similar to the primordial ocean, including water, minerals and ammonia and pyruvate that are generally located near hydrothermal vents. The mixture was heated to 158 degrees Fahrenheit, the oxygen was removed, and they added iron hydroxide, or ‘green rust,’ which was abundant in the early days of the planet."

“The green rust reacted with the traces of oxygen that were left, which produced the amino acid alanine and the alpha hydroxy acid lactate. Some researchers believe these could 

A photograph of greenish blue vapors and smoke rising from thermal vents in the ocean floor.

combine (like Legos) and create further complex molecules which could then be a precursor to life.”

Commentary by HDS. That is, not even the slightest bit of LIFE is produced in these experiments! Experiments based on mountains of suppositions.

Recreate, in small, laboratory beakers, conditions on the primordial ocean floor, including precise mixtures of elements, temperatures, depths, water pressures, currents, gravitational pressures, atmospheric conditions and who knows how many more relevant parameters?

Take notice, Mr. Ciaccia, that we added some parameters you did not mention, but which are surely relevant.

That the researchers themselves should set their own parameters based on a plethora of hypotheses? Because no intelligent being was present there four billion years ago to register exactly all relevant parameters precisely as they existed. Seems tremendously presumptuous to me, and far from truly scientific.

One must have stupendous faith in pure hypotheses to spend so much time and resources on such experiments, the sensible, worthwhile practicality of which could reasonably be questioned, especially in view of the critical, multiple, many-faceted crises impacting masses of real, live humans who inhabit a vibrant, livable planet called Earth literally teeming with untold billions of life forms.

In the context of the “sensible and worthwhile,” let us suppose that some rudimentary form of life, such as the “salt-loving Haloferax volcani” archaea ( could be verified as existing on some distant planet or moon of our Milky Way galaxy or any other galaxy, of what immense value would that conceivably be for human beings on planet Earth? Would you go get a beaker full of them and bring them back to Earth even if you could? Would such a find mean that “God does not exist and the Bible is a hoax?” Where is the Bible text which says something like: “Absolutely no life form, no matter how rudimentary, exist anywhere but 

A photograph of the salt-loving Archaea Haloferax volcani found in thermal vents on the ocean floor, illustration for the article on: NASA was able to recreate the origins of life and the results are shocking.

The archaea Haloferax volcani enlarged
11,000 times.

on Earth?” Really, in terms of “origins and beliefs,” is not the true challenge to find “out there” intelligent beings similar, or superior, to us in whose collective memory and actual knowledge base no “Creator-God” figures at all? for more information.

By the way, just who verified that hot fumaroles, with a concoction of water, minerals and acids that measured precisely 157 degrees Fahrenheit, existed on the bed of the primordial sea? Was that the astrobiologist Laurie Barge or her assistant Erika?

At what depth were they found?

Who verified that there was abundant “green rust” around such fumaroles or submarine valves?

In the beakers, “The green rust reacted with the traces of oxygen that were left, which produced the amino acid alanine and the alpha hydroxy acid lactate.”


The crux of the matter is to prove that the experiments carried out today in laboratory beakers really and truly replicated exactly parallel conditions on the ocean floor 4 billion years ago.

A challenge much greater by far would be to absolutely prove that such an ocean existed in such a dimension of time.

“Some researchers BELIEVE…”

That is, they have not proven anything of what so many of them and their coreligionists present as FACTS!

An unpardonable sin in the kingdom of the exact sciences.

A huge ERROR that induces masses of youth and adults to receive as REALITIES mere postulations resting on hypotheses by the barrel full.

“…complex molecules which could then be a precursor to life.”

The fact is: Astrobiologists HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CREATE A SINGLE ONE!

The combination of their acids, like Legos, HAS NEVER TAKEN PLACE!

Dear friend, why let yourself be duped by pure speculations?

Chris Ciaccia writes:"We've shown that in geological conditions similar to early Earth, and maybe to other planets, we can form amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids from a simple reaction under mild conditions that would have existed on the seafloor," Barge added in the statement."

Commentary by HDS. Again, numerous suppositions. What were the precise geological conditions of Earth in its early stage? Who or what power was there to verify those exact conditions? “Similar” is a relative term. Geological conditions just like those on early Earth recreated in a beaker today. Can you accomplish that, Laurie Barge?

The most rudimentary LIVE CELL known is extraordinarily complicated.  Logically, its’ supposed appearance, as the result of the fortuitous combination of inert elements, would presuppose phenomenally precise and complex parameters.

To this day, scientists have not been able to produce a single, original, fully alive cell from totally inert elements or chemicals.

Graphic, in color and highly detailed, of the structure of a generalized cell, illustration for: NASA was able to recreate the origins of life and the results are shocking.

Who has proven that “mild conditionswould have existed on the seafloor” of “the early Earth?” Another mere supposition. Who established that “mild conditions… would have existed?” “…mild,” and not any other state.

Did you take notice of the uncertainty in the clause “would have existed?” So much as to say: “Not sure about that, but might have existed.”

Trouble is that some scientists and writers take the next deceptive mental step of converting “uncertainty” to “fact!” By going on to say, positively: “Mild conditions existed on the seafloor of the early Earth, and life began right there.” No uncertainty in that declaration. For the informed, objective mind, just pure, unadulterated, unproven assertions!

Furthermore, and of greater importance than “precise geological conditions:” The existence of such an Earth 4 billion years ago is a supposition based on speculations of inexact sciences.

In synthesis, the only thing Barge and her team were able to demonstrate is that they could cause two specific acids to form in laboratory beakers, recipients that, due to their limitations in size, fragility and other factors, never could make possible the replication of absolutely exact conditions on any area of the ocean floor, whether of the present or of remotely distant times.

Let it be clearly noted: Two acids, no more, which DID NOT UNITE to form other elements or components, much less a LIVE CELL.

Underscoring for emphasis: This is the only thing Barge and her team demonstrated.

Despite that fact, Chris Ciaccio dares begin his article with the preposterous affirmation: “A new NASA study has recreated the origins of life…”

A GREAT LIE! An ENORMOUS DECEIT! And, as he believes it, so also may a great number of his readers, particularly those for whom the inclusion of “NASA” in the very false declaration is the magic acronym that dispels all doubt.

Chris Ciaccia writes:"We've shown that in geological conditions similar to early Earth, and maybe to other planets, we can form amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids from a simple reaction under mild conditions that would have existed on the seafloor," Barge added in the statement."

Commentary by HDS. “While it's important to note NASA has NOT CREATED LIFE ITSELF in the experiment…”

Mr. Ciaccio, this is HUGELY IMPORTANT!

You should have said this at the beginning instead of deceiving the public with your very erroneous and irresponsible declaration “A new NASA study has recreated the origins of life…”

Chris Ciaccia writes: “If we have these hydrothermal vents here on Earth, possibly similar reactions could occur on other planets," said JPL's Erika Flores, co-author of the new study.·

Commentary by HDS. Phraseology that expresses another speculation. Erika Flores should have said: “If we have these hydrothermal vents here on Earth, then there might be some on other planets where they might produce similar reactions.”

Chris Ciaccia writes: "We don't have concrete evidence of life elsewhere yet," said Barge. "But understanding the conditions that are required for life's origin can help narrow down the places that we think life could exist. The implications of the research are vast, especially as new celestial bodies are discovered, with some having the components to host life.”

Commentary by HDS. Not only do they lack “concrete evidence of life elsewhere,” neither do they know, as a scientific certainty, the “conditions that are required for life's origin,” according to the totally materialistic parameters of Darwinian evolution theses. The conditions they do establish are ones they themselves have conceived based on mere hypotheses.

By saying that some of the newly discovered celestial bodies have “the components to host life” they provide another classic example of presenting as fact that which is mere supposition.

“…having the components to host life” is a clear affirmation that, yes, those components do absolutely exist, and they absolutely can host life. Are those two absolutes absolutely verified beyond any doubt? Perhaps Barge should have said: “…with some possibly having components that might host life.”

Chris Ciaccia writes: “In 2018, researchers discovered that Saturn’s moon, Enceladus, has the ‘building blocks for life,’ after complex organic molecules were found on the natural satellite.”

Commentary by HDS. Naturally, the impartial mind, a little skeptical, like mine, would ask: What is the absolutely, unquestionable evidence that supports such a conclusion? I need reliable, irrefutable evidence to accept that those “building blocks for life” really do exist on Enceladus in the form of “complex organic molecules” absolutely proven to exist there. Mere speculations of inexact sciences do not weight with me.

How inexact some sciences, such as astronomy, can be is highlighted in the extensive article in on the moon Enceladus, in the sections on “Potential habitability” and “Hydrothermal vents.”

Fotograph of Enceladus, Saturn's moon, showing plumes of vapor rising from the surface, illustration for: NASA was able to recreate the origins of life and the results are shocking.
Photograph of layers making up Enceladus, Saturn's moon, illustration for: NASA was able to recreate the origins of life and the results are shocking.

Following are relevant excerpts from the article in wikipedia. Speculative expressions in the article are highlighted in bold. How many there are in a short space is impressive. Don’t miss the statement below on “the tree of life on Earth, the birthplace of all life that is known to exist.”

From Wikipedia. “This indicates that hydrothermal activity—an energy source—may be at work in Enceladus's subsurface ocean.[134][137] 

[Clarification: The “subsurface ocean,” if, indeed, it does exist, is not visible on the surface of Enceladus, which is mostly covered by ice, according to the Wikipedia article. DS]

Molecular hydrogen (H2), a geochemical source of energy that can be metabolized by methanogen microbes to provide energy for life, could be present if, as models suggest, Enceladus's salty ocean has an alkaline pH from serpentinization of chondritic rock.[84][85][86]

Painting of the Truee of Life on Earth, illustration for: NASA was able to recreate the origins of life and the results are shocking.

The presence of ample hydrogen in Enceladus's ocean means that microbesif any exist there – could use it to obtain energy by combining the hydrogen with carbon dioxide dissolved in the water. The chemical reaction is known as “methanogenesis” because it produces methane as a by-product and is at the root of the tree of life on Earth, the birthplace of all life that is known to exist.

On April 13, 2017, NASA announced the discovery of possible hydrothermal activity on Enceladus' sub-surface ocean floor.  It has been speculated that such activity could be a potential oasis of habitability.” [147][148][149] End of excerpts from the Wikipedia article.

The following statement is found in the article “Observation Astronomy,” in Wikipedia.

“As a science, the study of astronomy is somewhat hindered in that direct experiments with the properties of the distant universe are not possible.”

Let us always keep in mind that even if ‘building blocks for life’ do exist on other celestial bodies in the form of complex organic molecules, but those blocks never do come together to produce true, living organisms, then their presence would not necessarily alter the view that true living organisms are found only on planet Earth.

Chris Ciaccia closes: “A recently discovered exoplanet that orbits Barnard’s Star – known as Barnard b – could have the potential for extraterrestrial life if water exists somewhere on the planet. That's due to the possibility of geothermal heating, which could create an ocean for primitive life.”

Commentary by HDS. “…could have… if water exists… the possibility of… could create…” WOW! Classic speculations of astrobiologists. One would almost dare to ask: Does that exoplanet Bernard b really exist?

Not that I doubt it; just to call attention to the "speculation factor" that characterizes so many affirmations, expositions and postulations not only of astrobiologists but of the immense majority of scientists, engineers, philosophers and writers who are Darwinian evolutionists.

Blinded, it could be said, by their intransigent convictions, they do not even perceive, so it appears, that they frequently present as facts, including Darwinian evolution itself, matters which inherently belong in the categories of speculations, hypothesis or purely fantastical projections.

We could hope to find in them, professionals that they are, more objectivity, honesty, exactness, sound logic, transparency, and the humility of minds open to continual learning.

By the way, I personally do not find anything “shocking” in the “results” of the study carried out by employees of NASA!

What does profoundly shock me is the subtle, clever manner of transmitting those “results.” For I do not doubt many readers take them as indubitable proof of the discovery of life itself in mixtures prepared today in laboratory beakers.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

May I also respectfully suggest the article"Your Life. Your Bodyand the "Study of Chimpanzee Tool Use Debunks Chimps in Stone Age Theoryas also shedding much light on the less-than-total objectivity in the scientific world of today.

Also the document on the passing of the Hale-Bopp comet in 1997 and the tragedy of 39 Heaven's Gate members who committed suicide, certain their souls would board a spaceship in the tail of that Hale-Bopp comet. Hale-Boppalypse, Doomsday, National Geo, Christianity. Are comets Doomsday omens?

Sincerely, Homer Dewayne Shappley


Este documento en ESPAÑOL.

bottom of page