# NASA: ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 25, 2018)

Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....

‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 25, 2018)

"Aliens" HAVE visited earth, but the left, who usually believes in such nonsense, doesn't want to believe THESE beings exist.



> 4 Then I looked, and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire.
> 
> 5 Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarathonMike (Dec 25, 2018)

That makes no sense. If there is a chance of Alien life outside of the Earth, it would be impossible to prove those Aliens have not visited Earth.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 25, 2018)

Sounds about right


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 26, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> That makes no sense. If there is a chance of Alien life outside of the Earth, it would be impossible to prove those Aliens have not visited Earth.


Well, the headline is misleading. The NASA administrators comment was:

"“I don’t think extraterrestrial life has ever visited this planet"


----------



## Flash (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> 
> ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.




Nobody in NASA has a clue if there is life outside Earth.

None of the scientists have any more valid information on that than any other human because right now we only have one data point and that is earth.

Until we get another data point from some place else all we have are jackshit guesses.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 26, 2018)

Flash said:


> Nobody in NASA has a clue if there is life outside Earth.


We can see this, when they say "there is a chance of" instead of "there is".


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 26, 2018)

NASA lost all credibility with me when they were caught fudging temperature data to promote man made global warming, errrr, climate change, and the devastating economic solutions big government always wants.  That, in addition to their "Muslim Outreach" Mission made me realize they were just another corrupt government agency.  A far cry from "The Right Stuff".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 26, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> NASA lost all credibility with me when they were caught fudging temperature data to promote man made global warming, errrr, climate change, and the devastating economic solutions big government always wants.  That, in addition to their "Muslim Outreach" Mission made me realize they were just another corrupt government agency.  A far cry from "The Right Stuff".


Well good, then we won't have to scroll past any more of your ridiculous postings in this thread. Always look at the bright side!

What's really going to be both fascinating and disappointing is when (okay, if) we find life elsewhere...and it's DNA based.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 26, 2018)

Flash said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> ...


NASA deals in probabilities 

They look at the vastness of the universe and calculate the probability of the existence of life. 

Then they look at the vastness of the universe and calculate the improbability of ever getting there


----------



## denmark (Dec 26, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Agree. Science deals frequently with inferences, inductive logic, and “concludes” with probabilities that a hypothesis may be true, or not.
Replication of methods & data are important to increase certainty.
In the case of intelligent “aliens”, there is nothing to replicate, only inference.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 26, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


What’s the probability of atoms writing Beethoven’s 5th?  Because that’s what we’re talking about here.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 26, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> NASA lost all credibility with me when they were caught fudging temperature data to promote man made global warming, errrr, climate change, and the devastating economic solutions big government always wants.  That, in addition to their "Muslim Outreach" Mission made me realize they were just another corrupt government agency.  A far cry from "The Right Stuff".


NASA can’t even put a man in space.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > NASA lost all credibility with me when they were caught fudging temperature data to promote man made global warming, errrr, climate change, and the devastating economic solutions big government always wants.  That, in addition to their "Muslim Outreach" Mission made me realize they were just another corrupt government agency.  A far cry from "The Right Stuff".
> ...



They have put several...


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 26, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> NASA lost all credibility with me when they were caught fudging temperature data to promote man made global warming, errrr, climate change, and the devastating economic solutions big government always wants.  That, in addition to their "Muslim Outreach" Mission made me realize they were just another corrupt government agency.  A far cry from "The Right Stuff".


Do you have a link?
And please don't say east anglia


----------



## Flash (Dec 26, 2018)

denmark said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




Correct.  In order to do any valid probability assumption you need a data population with more than one data point.  Until we find life elsewhere no probability projection is valid.  It doesn't make any difference if a NASA rocket scientist is making the assumption or not.

The problem with people making a statistical inference that we are not alone in this universe is that they have been brainwashed by Science Fiction.    Everybody just knows that there must be other life in the universe because they have seen it so many times in movies and on TV and read it in books. However, Science doesn't support it until we learn more like finding life elsewhere.


----------



## Flash (Dec 26, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> NASA lost all credibility with me when they were caught fudging temperature data to promote man made global warming, errrr, climate change, and the devastating economic solutions big government always wants.  That, in addition to their "Muslim Outreach" Mission made me realize they were just another corrupt government agency.  A far cry from "The Right Stuff".




NASA, (along with NOAA and even our national labs) sold their credibility for government funding.  They have been caught creating bogus data in order to appease their customer, which in the case of AGW research, was the Obama administration.


----------



## denmark (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


The probability of atoms writing Beethoven’s 5th is 100%.
Beethoven’s brain was made up of atoms.


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 26, 2018)

Flash said:


> NASA, (along with NOAA and even our national labs) sold their credibility for government funding.  They have been caught creating bogus data in order to appease their customer, which in the case of AGW research, was the Obama administration.



NASA and NOAA.  Two agencies we rely upon to be NON-POLITICAL, yet under Obama became extremely activist and political.  Along with the IRS, EPA, Interior, and most of all the DOJ Obama politicized these agencies to punish his enemies, and to promote his agenda of LIES like man made global warming.  We are still paying for it.


----------



## denmark (Dec 26, 2018)

Flash said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Not necessarily life itself, but astrobiologists also look for biosignatures, or components of life as we know it.


----------



## Flash (Dec 26, 2018)

denmark said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...




I am any engineer and not exactly ignorant of science and while not a astrobiologist or astronomer I don't have a clue what a celestial "biosignature" would be.  Carbon?  Carbon is a building block of life as we know it but by itself isn't life.  If it was then the charcoal in the bottom of my  Big Green Egg would be alive.

Water and carbon doesn't produce life.  If it did then every Jr High Science class would be creating life as a lab assignment. 

Lets get another data point and then we can talk.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 26, 2018)

Since life occurred here, that it could occur elsewhere cannot be excluded.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> What’s the probability of atoms writing Beethoven’s 5th?


Clearly, 100%. Unless you have a magical,non physical explanation. Which, of course, you do: magic


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 26, 2018)

The probability that something could happen becomes moot once it happens.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 26, 2018)

Flash said:


> Until we find life elsewhere no probability projection is valid.


Yet it is quite valid to assume life has almost certainly formed more than once in the universe, if not just possibly so, then to do  science proceeding from that assumption. Else, one cannot even begin to do the science.

We found it very probable that certain forms would be found in the fossil record. We predicted where and when they would be found. And then we found them. We did not have to find them first, then have discussions about probablility. We did not have to assign an exact probability to this prediction.

Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. And life as we know it is made up of the most abundant elements in the universe, in almost precisely the exact proportions on which they occur in the universe . So it is, indeed, a valid assumption from which to proceed to do science that life likely has formed and/or existed elsewhere, or, at the very least, possibly has.


----------



## denmark (Dec 26, 2018)

Flash said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


“Our concepts of life and biosignatures are inextricably linked. To be useful for exploration, biosignatures must be defined in terms that can be measured and quantified. Measurable attributes of life include its complex physical and chemical structures and also its utilization of free energy and the production of biomass and wastes; phenomena that can be sustained through self-replication and evolution.“

Astrobiology Roadmap


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 26, 2018)

Flash said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


I just put a #2 pencil in a cup of water and it just wrote a symphony overture.


----------



## denmark (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> I just put a #2 pencil in a cup of water and it just wrote a symphony overture.


It did? Then you must have a strong imagination!
You believe in a specific religion too? Or you like pressing the “easy button” when you think about process?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 26, 2018)

denmark said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I just put a #2 pencil in a cup of water and it just wrote a symphony overture.
> ...


You believe atoms write music and stare at sunsets and you say _I_ have an active imagination?


----------



## denmark (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Neurons are involved in creative thought. They are made up of atoms. Simple fact, not imagination.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 26, 2018)

denmark said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


Newsflash: you’re just a bunch of atoms.


----------



## denmark (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


That’s not news to me.
Maybe you should consume contemporary news more often. Try science too.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 26, 2018)

denmark said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


So why does the periodic table like listening to Bach and watching sunsets?


----------



## denmark (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


It doesn’t. The table has no brain.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 26, 2018)

denmark said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


The brain is nothing but an assembly of atoms from the periodic table.


----------



## denmark (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Those PATTERNS of atom activity in the PATTERNS of neuron activity reflected in creative thought are amazing!


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> 
> ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.


*The Moon and Sixpence*

With this Wow! Cool! Trekkie treacle, NA$A hopes to squeeze more money out of those depressed escapists who've given up on Earth.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 26, 2018)

Death Angel said:


> "Aliens" HAVE visited earth, but the left, who usually believes in such nonsense, doesn't want to believe THESE beings exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Zeke the Geek*

Ezekiel has been reincarnated as a NA$A storyteller of sensationalist scenarios.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 26, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> NASA deals in probabilities



So does Vegas.  

It seams the Vegans are better at it.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 26, 2018)

denmark said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


*Children Pigging Out on Mind Candy*

Goofy pathetic nerds don't fit in where life is as we know it.  That's why the wimpy weaklings hide from it in laboratories, libraries, and observatories creating science-fiction images of life that make them heroic Jedi action figures.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 26, 2018)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


And they invent things like "the internet", where any trailer park creature with WiFi can run round calling himself a sage...


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 26, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


*Tchaikovsky Was a Big Football Fan Who Wrote Music About a Super Bowl Called "18 to 12 in Overtime"*

How many billions of government funding do you want?  If we pay you to make more of those pencils, we will control the future and can forget about all our other problems.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 26, 2018)

denmark said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


Patterns of atomic activity?
I think you’re onto a Nobel here.  Tell us how atomic particles do anything more than bond to other atoms.


----------



## james bond (Dec 26, 2018)

It's the silliness of aliens again.  The atheists and their atheist scientists cannot help but believe in make-believe spaghetti monsters, global warming, aliens, panspermia and the like.  There is absolutely no evidence of aliens and absolutely no way they can exist due to real science.  The fine tuning facts and solar wind outside of Earth prevent it so for the entire universe.  Thus, the atheist scientists have to make up stuff in the make-believe evolutionary science of multiverses.  People are afraid of creating another universe at LHC haha.  What a joke this atheist science is!

NASA wants more money to find aliens on Mars with a manned mission.  Let the Chinese with money or the Russians do it.  We can sell them our rocket technology to help get there and find nothing.  Hopefully, their astronauts will be able to come back and not die there due to the solar wind (radiation).

NASA: We'll find alien life in 10 to 20 years

Is there a chance these insipid scientists figure this stuff out?  Nope.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> The fine tuning facts and solar wind outside of Earth prevent it so for the entire universe.


Completely made up, unscientific nonsense.


----------



## denmark (Dec 27, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Hint:
PATTERNS of bonding between atoms CREATE basic chemical compounds with certain properties, and PATTERNS of these compounds CREATE complex organic molecular structures (PATTERNS) such as nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA, that CREATE ...


----------



## Geaux4it (Dec 27, 2018)

WASHINGTON – NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said that extraterrestrial life might exist on another planet since there is _*“water throughout our entire solar system.”*_

What an assumption that alien life requires water

-Geaux


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

Geaux4it said:


> What an assumption that alien life requires water


That's not really the assumption. The assumption is that life as we understand it requires water. So, it makes sense to concentrate our efforts on what we know.


----------



## denmark (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> It's the silliness of aliens again.  The atheists and their atheist scientists cannot help but believe in make-believe spaghetti monsters, global warming, aliens, panspermia and the like.  There is absolutely no evidence of aliens and absolutely no way they can exist due to real science.  The fine tuning facts and solar wind outside of Earth prevent it so for the entire universe.  Thus, the atheist scientists have to make up stuff in the make-believe evolutionary science of multiverses.  People are afraid of creating another universe at LHC haha.  What a joke this atheist science is!
> 
> NASA wants more money to find aliens on Mars with a manned mission.  Let the Chinese with money or the Russians do it.  We can sell them our rocket technology to help get there and find nothing.  Hopefully, their astronauts will be able to come back and not die there due to the solar wind (radiation).
> 
> ...


It is obvious you are ignorant about science.
Bashing something you are ignorant about is stupid, don’t you realize?

First of all, scientists are AGNOSTIC when doing science. They test hypotheses with scientific methods.
Second, they don’t make up stuff, like Trump and many other non-scientific politicians do. Scientists collect observable data and interpret them.
Third, scientific studies are usually peer-reviewed by reputable scientists from many nations, not only USA.

You want to learn about science, or maintain your biased stupid agenda?


----------



## Geaux4it (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > What an assumption that alien life requires water
> ...



But our assumption of Alien Life is the Close Encounters type. Not some micro organism in a puddle of water. I would expect better justification than water exist in our solar system. How about more realistic proof, Roswell etc.... Their justification does not carry water..... no pun intended

-Geaux


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

denmark said:


> You want to learn about science, or maintain your biased stupid agenda?


Do you really need to ask? He regurgitates blogs from creation.com about scientific topics neither he nor the lying authors understand. That is where he gets his science info. That says it all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

Geaux4it said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


I don't think scientists are aiming to meet humanoid aliens. They are simply looking for any kind of life. And , given that resources and time are scarce, it only makes sense to start with what we know.

Add to that the fact that we might not know alien life if we looked right at it (if it is vastly different than life as we know it on Earth), and it makes even more sense to focus on what we know.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 27, 2018)

denmark said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


Thus back to my original question. Why does an atom like listening to Bach?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > You want to learn about science, or maintain your biased stupid agenda?
> ...


Uh.


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The fine tuning facts and solar wind outside of Earth prevent it so for the entire universe.
> ...



Fine tuning facts were discovered by atheist scientists.  Facts are facts and not made up like beliefs in "aliens."  Because of this we know aliens are "faith-based" myths.  It's like believing we can walk on other planets without a space suit.  Fine tuning facts show that other planets do not have the same atmosphere as Earth.  Manned exploration of Mars could be a dangerous experiment if the humans do not have adequate protection from the solar wind for it does not have the magnetic field nor ozone layer of Earth.  Astronauts dying on the surface of Mars would make for bad television.


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

denmark said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > It's the silliness of aliens again.  The atheists and their atheist scientists cannot help but believe in make-believe spaghetti monsters, global warming, aliens, panspermia and the like.  There is absolutely no evidence of aliens and absolutely no way they can exist due to real science.  The fine tuning facts and solar wind outside of Earth prevent it so for the entire universe.  Thus, the atheist scientists have to make up stuff in the make-believe evolutionary science of multiverses.  People are afraid of creating another universe at LHC haha.  What a joke this atheist science is!
> ...



Why should I learn what I already know.  You present no scientific argument.  Or else some atheist would have shown "scientific" evidence for why they believe in aliens.  Instead, it's the opposition, creation scientists and people in-the-middle like I, who have presented the scientific evidence.

It's obvious you lack intelligence to figure these things out.  Science isn't agnostic, it's atheist.  Today's "secular," i.e. ATHEIST, science powers have systematically eliminated the opposition of those who believed in creation.  Many scientists just accepted this before the 1850s.  Before, creation scientists were able to participate in peer-reviews, present their scientific papers and such.  Now they can lose their jobs for presenting a hypothesis based on the Bible such as the universe has boundaries or life from non-life cannot happen.  Much of the greatest scientific minds in science were creation scientists such as Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo and more.  Bacon is the father of modern science.  Today's atheist scientists are wrong just like you.

Thus, your stupid assertions makes you a stupendous dunce.  Go sit in the corner wearing your pointy head cap and whine.


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

Nope, aliens fly right on by, look out the window and say '_no way am i landing my nice new ufo in that sh*thole'...._





~S~


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> Fine tuning facts were discovered by atheist scientists.


No they weren't. Facts were discovered by scientists, and then you silly cultists made them mean whatever you need them to mean to maintain your hilariously dumb magical paradigms.


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Here's a scientific argument.  If NASA is planning a manned expedition to Mars, how are they going to protect the astronauts from the fine tuning facts of no magnetic field and ozone layer?  The astronauts will have to survive the solar winds and extreme radiation which no creature has been able to survive.

Or NASA said they will discover alien life, even one microbe, is considered life.  What evidence do they base it on?  The chances are there is no other life in the universe except on Earth.  That's based on fine tuning facts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> Here's a scientific argument.


That's not an argument at all, scientific or otherwise. I don't think you understand what the word "argument" means.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> What evidence do they base it on?


The circumstantial evidence that abiogenesis has occurred at least once in the universe, and the physical laws are the same everywhere.


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fine tuning facts were discovered by atheist scientists.
> ...



Now you're changing history.  I guess I have to remind some people of what the alien "faith-based" wackos have to overcome.


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > What evidence do they base it on?
> ...



That isn't real science.  It's historical or forensics science based on assumptions.  The facts are that abiogenesis does not happen.  It's been rendered pseudoscience because it's not observable nor testable.  Spontaneous generation, which abiogenesis is based on, before that was rendered pseudoscience, too.  When we look at the physical laws, we see that cosmic inflation does not happen.  We see that life doesn't happen elsewhere besides Earth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I changed no history. What you did there was to slip your magical talking point into your loaded question, thus assuming as true the very thing it is your burden to argue. It is specious and dishonest and 100% to be expected from you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> That isn't real science.


No shit, it's not meant to be. The "real science" occurs when we perform experiments and observations. You are quickly becoming incoherent. I invite you to please learn the difference between a hypothesis and the process of testing a hypothesis to avoid further embarrassment for yourself.


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a scientific argument.
> ...



It's an argument that you can't figure out.  The argument goes against life on Mars because life can't survive without being able to overcome solar winds and its extreme radiation.  The experiments show no creature can survive in space in those conditions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> It's an argument that you can't figure out.


Wrong, please re read your own post. You stated no argument whatsoever. And you still haven't. That shows me you don't really know how to state an argument.

And do yourself a favor: your plagiarized, creationist canards are older than dirt. You embarrass yourself to dance and prance and declare people don't understand them. Your simpleminded, specious creationist nonsense is not a hard exercise for a high school sophomore 3 months into biology.

But, go ahead big guy: state your argument in simple form with simple statements.


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



It explained why no life anywhere else and this is the observation we get from all the probes and evidence we have gathered so far.  People wanted to go to Mars before, but now not so much.  If I didn't have the scientific evidence, then why say that life CAN'T exist outside Earth?  You're the one bringing in the "magical" talking point into your rebuttal.  I just presented straight science in a S&T forum.


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > It's an argument that you can't figure out.
> ...



And you could not provide any evidence that humans would be safe from the solar winds on Mars.  You did not even try to answer my question.  Both the no magnetic field and no ozone layers on Mars are scientific facts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> The argument goes against life on Mars because life can't survive without being able to overcome solar winds and its extreme radiation.


Let's pick apart why this is wrong.

First, Mars once did have a magnetic field. As the search is not just for life, but also past life, your talking point is hot garbage.

Furthermore, any search for extant life would involve looking underground, where the life would be shielded from this radiation. Again, your talking point is hot garbage.

Third, the "fine tuning" to which you repeatedly refer is just a variation of an old fallacy called "Hoyle's fallacy". This fallacy is fodder for college sophomores taking discrete mathematics. And, since you don't seem to realize that nobody is insisting that creatures identical to humans in every way exist on other planets, you are pulling your taffy for no reason anyway.


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > That isn't real science.
> ...



With abiogenesis, experiments were done and it turned out to be a defective experiement.  It also showed that life didn't happen as hypothesized, the opposite happened.  Yet, atheist scientists today accept life from non-life or soup based on your "circumstantial" evidence.  When was "circumstantial" evidence accepted as real science?


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The argument goes against life on Mars because life can't survive without being able to overcome solar winds and its extreme radiation.
> ...



That's not what NASA stated per the link.  They expect to find life with no evidence.

As to your argument, what about no ozone layer?  The magnetic field provides shielding, but the solar winds still get through.  Besides, the evidence is no evidence of past life, too.

NASA did probe underground and found the soil contaminated.  How far do you have to go underground?  And aren't you assuming alien life when there has been no evidence?  Likely, there is and was no life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> With abiogenesis, experiments were done and it turned out to be a defective experiement.


This is a shameless lie . Expermient after experiment confirms the required events  not only to be possible, but likely. I would say you just shamelessly made that up, but we both know you plagiarized it from creation.com without fact checking it.



james bond said:


> It also showed that life didn't happen as hypothesized


A stupid error on your part. We could come up with 100 ideas for the specifics of abiogenesis and rule out all 100 of them, and that would still not rule out abiogenesis.


james bond said:


> Yet, atheist scientists today accept life from non-life or soup based on your "circumstantial" evidence.


Another stupid error. The circumstantial evidence I presented was not support for abiogenesis, but rather support for finding life elsewhere. Abiogenis is a foregone conclusion due to the fact that all the evidence ever collected on any subject shows that our universe is deterministic and the laws of physics work everywhere. Where once there was no star, and then there was, a physical process following natural laws connects the two states of affairs. It is the same for everything. That includes life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> That's not what NASA stated per the link. They expect to find life with no evidence.


A shameless lie. You are really a font of shameless lies. You are embarrassing yourself. 


james bond said:


> NASA did probe underground and found the soil contaminated. How far do you have to go underground?


Perhaps kilometers. We don't know. How about, ask a scientist instead of a lying creationist blogger?


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > With abiogenesis, experiments were done and it turned out to be a defective experiement.
> ...



Louis Pasteur, creation scientist and father of modern microbiology, showed that life does not arise from non-life.  He discovered it was microbes not abiogenesis.  Thus, your stupidity and belief in stupid atheist science was destroyed some time ago.  Still rotfl your "faith-based" belief in abiogenesis.


----------



## james bond (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > That's not what NASA stated per the link. They expect to find life with no evidence.
> ...



Because it's NASA's scientists who are lying.  They just want your hard earned tax dollars.

Thus, we can conclude you have no way to overcome the toxic soil so no need going further or kilometers.  All of this can be done with robotics as we have done so far.  No need for human exploration.  At least, I have made you confess to NASA wanting to find evidence of life on Mars, when there is/wasn't any.  It means it's a huge waste of money.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


*Bitter Mutant Misfits Have Turned Science Into Authoritarian Irrationalism*

It's a matter of attitude, which is the ulterior motivation of both.  Theists believe Man was created in the image of a Supreme Being, which makes them embrace life.  Postmodern evolutionists believe Man is just another animal, and a dreary, vicious, and destructive one at that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> Louis Pasteur, creation scientist and father of modern microbiology, showed that life does not arise from non-life.


No he didn't. He only showed that microbes don't poof into existence overnight. Which, as any honest person would admit, does not undermine the fact of abiogenesis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> Because it's NASA's scientists who are lying.


No they aren't. That's another lie by you.


james bond said:


> Thus, we can conclude you have no way to overcome the toxic soil so no need going further or kilometers.


Wrong, we already know there are underground bodies of water. Furthermore the Martian soil layer is very thin. Third, the search is for past life as well, and themartian soil was not the same billions of years ago.

So literally every word of that statement by you is wrong. This is because you pulled it out of your ass without thinking it through.


----------



## sparky (Dec 27, 2018)

james bond said:


> Here's a scientific argument. If NASA is planning a manned expedition to Mars, how are they going to protect the astronauts from the fine tuning facts of no magnetic field and ozone layer? The astronauts will have to survive the solar winds and extreme radiation which no creature has been able to survive.



So send some climate deniers , nothing bugs them.......~S~


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

This ridiculous talking point brought to you by creation.com: Louis Pasteur - creation.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

Behold the utter and complete ignorance of the fundamental ideas of evolution on display in that joke of a blog:

"*He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.’2

Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution."*
........................
In evolution (a/k/a, reality), every individual is the same species as it's parent(s). "Spontaneous generation" is not a part of evolution. Nobody with even the most cursory understanding of evolution would think that showing a microbe's parents have to be present to get the offspring undermines evolutionary theory.

It did, however, undermine a lot of religion-fueled bullshit that was pervasive at the time. Strange...the blogger does not mention this! I doubt he is even aware of his enlightened mindset on germ theory that Pasteur gifted him, or that his own church stood in the way of this theory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


The facts show man is just another animal, albeit a special one. Accepting this fact doesn't make one nihilist or fatalist. Speak for yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

A frightening thought:

Given the geometry of our universe, there may be a limited amount of time for species to contact each other. It may be true that not enough species in the right places and distances from each other will exist before such contact is all but impossible. Developing scientific knowledge and engineering with it takes time. Given the many pratfalls that can befall a species over time, it may end up that time simply runs out before two species from different planets contact each other.


----------



## Karl Rand (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A frightening thought:
> 
> Given the geometry of our universe, there may be a limited amount of time for species to contact each other. It may be true that not enough species in the right places and distances from each other will exist before such contact is all but impossible. Developing scientific knowledge and engineering with it takes time. Given the many pratfalls that can befall a species over time, it may end up that time simply runs out before two species from different planets contact each other.


Or like our species will soon learn, some destroy themselves before they manage to spew out into other galaxies, invade and colonise others.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > That makes no sense. If there is a chance of Alien life outside of the Earth, it would be impossible to prove those Aliens have not visited Earth.
> ...




Then how are you here?

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

Karl Rand said:


> Or like our species will soon learn, some destroy themselves before they manage to spew out into other galaxies, invade and colonise others


Absolutely, that would be one of the possible pratfalls.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...


No need to worship me. I am not your alien master.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Oh please everyone knows you are an Illegal killer rapist Mexican.

.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This ridiculous talking point brought to you by creation.com: Louis Pasteur - creation.com


Facts are facts.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A frightening thought:
> 
> Given the geometry of our universe, there may be a limited amount of time for species to contact each other. It may be true that not enough species in the right places and distances from each other will exist before such contact is all but impossible. Developing scientific knowledge and engineering with it takes time. Given the many pratfalls that can befall a species over time, it may end up that time simply runs out before two species from different planets contact each other.


Why is a single cell microbe on Mars life but a baby with a beating heart just a lump of tissue?


----------



## Karl Rand (Dec 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > A frightening thought:
> ...


Because Rome said it’s not?


----------



## denmark (Dec 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


That was not your original question.
*Which of these questions of yours do you wsnt to revisit*?

TO RIGHTWINGER:
“What’s the probability of atoms writing Beethoven’s 5th?”

TO ME:
“So why does the periodic table like listening to Bach and watching sunsets?”


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > A frightening thought:
> ...


You must be confused. You will have to find someone that thinks a fetus is not living tissue. I recommend you check your imagination, as that is the only place where you are likely to find this person and the only place where your points seem smart and informed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Facts are facts


And ignorant statements are ignorant statements.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Fall back to stupid word games to defend killing babies, so typical.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


That was whiny and nonsensical. Here's an equivalent stupid question:

Why aren't pro lifers protesting against antibiotics?

See? It's easy to imitate stupid...even easier to just be stupid, as you show us.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Dumbass gets dumber.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Why do you even enter these threads? You know less than nothing about any scientific topic. You embarrass yourself repeatedly with false statements and madeup, magical nonsense. You say things that would get you laughed out of a middle school science class. I don't see the appeal for you.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Ah, so the guy who comfortably retired in his 50’s after a career in engineering, has a US patent in his name for a medical device, has designs flying in spacecraft and airlines is anti-science!

Is that the same from Newton to the discoverer of the human genome, they were anti-science?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ah, so the guy who comfortably retired in his 50’s after a career in engineering, has a US patent in his name for a medical device, has designs flying in spacecraft and airlines is anti-science!


Nobody has any idea what you are talking about, least of all you.


----------



## Karl Rand (Dec 28, 2018)

TO ANYONE: Why don’t some patterns of atoms NOT enjoy listening to Bach?


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Louis Pasteur, creation scientist and father of modern microbiology, showed that life does not arise from non-life.
> ...



Still no scientific evidence of abiogenesis while LP's experiment does show microbes can only come from other microbes.  God's invisible life forms >>>>>>>> atheist scientists' invisible matter.


----------



## Karl Rand (Dec 28, 2018)

There’s no point in arguing with true believers. I’ve said it before and sadly I’ll probably have to say it again.
Underlying all this though is a definition of LIFE that might be a little too narrow considering how so much taking place in the Universe is as yet unknown. Well not unknown to true believers who imagine they've been provided with all the answers they need by a so called holy book.


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Because it's NASA's scientists who are lying.
> ...



NASA's lies make the news while my truth just makes USMB forums.  It should be the other way around, but james bond sez there are no aliens somehow doesn't make the news.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong, we already know there are underground bodies of water. Furthermore the Martian soil layer is very thin. Third, the search is for past life as well, and themartian soil was not the same billions of years ago.
> 
> So literally every word of that statement by you is wrong. This is because you pulled it out of your ass without thinking it through.



Too much wrongness in your post to rebut.  You ignore the fine tuning facts as well as solar wind and the rest.  The Earth has 3/4 of the surface covered by water due to the flood.  That's worth exploring more than Martian soil or underground ocean hypothesis.  No evidence of actual underground oceans and you can't have liquid water on the surface.  Finally, the billions of years ago may not have happened yet.  Can we just let the Chinese go to Mars?


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

sparky said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a scientific argument. If NASA is planning a manned expedition to Mars, how are they going to protect the astronauts from the fine tuning facts of no magnetic field and ozone layer? The astronauts will have to survive the solar winds and extreme radiation which no creature has been able to survive.
> ...



Your logic is asinine.  Climate deniers should just stay on Earth while the global warmists should go to Mars or elsewhere to protect themselves.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 28, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> That makes no sense. If there is a chance of Alien life outside of the Earth, it would be impossible to prove those Aliens have not visited Earth.


What the guy means is they are not hiding alien craft and nasa is not aware of visitation. You are right no way to prove a negative. For all we know they could have been here m illions of years ago. That all being said there alot of rocks out there what are the odds a race capable of star travel found ours?


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Chinese to mars us to europa!


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This ridiculous talking point brought to you by creation.com: Louis Pasteur - creation.com



Real observational, testable and falsifiable science.

"The ancient Greeks had believed that small animals such as worms, mice, and maggots sprang to life automatically from the non-living matter around (such as rotting flour, a sweaty shirt, or decaying meat). This belief that living matter arose from non-living material is called spontaneous generation. The idea of maggots’ coming spontaneously to life out of decaying meat was successfully challenged in 1668 by Italian biologist Francesco Redi. When he covered the meat with gauze to prevent flies from laying their eggs on it, no maggots appeared in the meat. (The maggots are actually the larvae which hatch from flies’ eggs.)

Long after the idea of spontaneous generation of maggots, mice and worms had been generally discarded, scientists still clung to the idea of *spontaneous generation* of microscopic animals. To disprove this idea also, Pasteur boiled some broth to kill any microbes present. With special glassware, he allowed air to circulate over the broth, but prevented microbes in the air from reaching the broth. As Pasteur expected, no microbes appeared in the broth. Pasteur’s findings showed that microbes were not spontaneously generated from the broth itself. Microbes would only appear in the broth if they were allowed in with the air. He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.’2

Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution. Despite all the efforts of evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found. Pasteur’s findings conflicted with the idea of spontaneous generation (as do all scientific results since). Consequently, Louis Pasteur was a strong opponent of Darwin’s theory."

Yet, we still have no real scientific evidence for abiogenesis except your "because we're here" claim.  You are one of biggest liars on USMB.


----------



## sparky (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Grand plan, how much are tickets?   ~S~


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Behold the utter and complete ignorance of the fundamental ideas of evolution on display in that joke of a blog:
> 
> "*He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.’2
> 
> ...



Germ theory backs up the Bible, not evolution.

"Shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life. Pasteur’s simple, but elegant swan-necked flask experiments not only put to rest the organic life-from-non-life idea, but also set the foundation for the law of biogenesis: life only comes from life. The genesis of germs in hospital patients were the result of microbes having parents, not a result of spontaneous generation. This revolutionary idea would have application in many areas of medicine. It forms the basis of sterilization, asepsis in surgery, and the germ theory of disease."

It destroyed Darwin and helped countless people in medicine and under medical care.

Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, Genesis of Germs

Be careful what you lie about Fort Fun Indiana.


----------



## sparky (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> "The ancient Greeks had believed that small animals such as worms, mice, and maggots sprang to life automatically from the non-living matter around (such as rotting flour, a sweaty shirt, or decaying meat)



remind me to lay off the lamb.....

~S~


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

sparky said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...



Why ask me?  I'm one of those staying.

Anyway, I thought I'd give you some help.

A one-way ticket to Mars, apply now - CNN


----------



## sparky (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Behold the utter and complete ignorance of the fundamental ideas of evolution on display in that joke of a blog:
> ...





> In past years revisionist historians have been rewriting the worldview of Christians who have made some of the major discoveries in biology and medicine



Doubtless it'll be part of some religmo park.....~S~


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> Still no scientific evidence of abiogenesis


Wrong, all the scientific evidence ever collected about anything points to abiogenesis. I already covered that.

Hey, here is a chance to embarrass yourself:

What would be evidence of abiogenesis?


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A frightening thought:
> 
> Given the geometry of our universe, there may be a limited amount of time for species to contact each other. It may be true that not enough species in the right places and distances from each other will exist before such contact is all but impossible. Developing scientific knowledge and engineering with it takes time. Given the many pratfalls that can befall a species over time, it may end up that time simply runs out before two species from different planets contact each other.



Or not.

Given you believe in billions of years, Fermi's paradox (Fermi is way smarter than your lying arse), has shown they would've made contact already.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Behold the utter and complete ignorance of the fundamental ideas of evolution on display in that joke of a blog:
> ...


 Pasteur only proved that microbes didn't poof into existence. That's it. At no point does any part of evolutionary theory claim otherwise. So you and the blogger are both embarrassing yourselves. Correction, just the blogger, as you are merely plagiarizing him.


----------



## sparky (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...





> Still, the company said it has received more than 10,000 e-mails from interested would-be spacefarers.



I've got just the man for the job.....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> Fermi's paradox (Fermi is way smarter than your lying arse), has shown they would've made contact already.


No it doesn't, that's merely thought experiment. It doesn't conclusively tell us anything. How very uncientific of you to say otherwise.

For instance, life has existed on Earth for 4 billion years. And we have travelled to no other star systems.


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Still no scientific evidence of abiogenesis
> ...



More lies.  Otherwise, you would've provided the post #.

Already said Louis Pasteur showed abiogenesis doesn't happen in a couple of posts.  Check post #111 for one example.

You are too stupid to know you're whipped.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> More lies. Otherwise, you would've provided the post #.


I don't have post numbers on my phone. You really will just say anything, won't you?

Yes, all evidence ever collected shows us a deterministic universe full of physical processes governed by laws. That is how we know galaxies were not pooped out by unicorns, and it is how we know abiogenesis is a fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> Already said Louis Pasteur showed abiogenesis doesn't happen in a couple of posts.


But he didn't show that, and I have explained precisely why. This is why you and the blogger you plagiarized are internet jockeys living on the fringes and would be laughed out of the room in the company of educated people.


----------



## sparky (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > A frightening thought:
> ...



Arther C Clark wrote the Universe , which parsed out Fermi's conjecture scientifically and specifically


~S~


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fermi's paradox (Fermi is way smarter than your lying arse), has shown they would've made contact already.
> ...



Wrong again.  It was his "back of the envelope" calculations to provide solid estimates on the flimsiest of data.  Your thinking starts with flimsy and end up with poo.  PIPO.

Another assumption in regards to 4 B years, but according to Fermi, Drake and others, the superior ETs who could travel even at 15% the speed of light would've contacted us already.  Again, you must have a hole in your head about fine tuning facts and effects of solar wind.

Thus, Fermi is famous while you're still Fort Fun Indiana.  At least, I'm relatively famous.


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Already said Louis Pasteur showed abiogenesis doesn't happen in a couple of posts.
> ...



And I had to rebut successfully twice why you were wrong and a liar.  Doesn't the poo you spew out of your mouth leave a bad taste?  It looks disgusting from this side when I have to read your posts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> Another assumption in regards to 4 B years, but according to Fermi, Drake and others, the superior ETs who could travel even at 15% the speed of light would've contacted us already.


False. That would only be true if we were the only chosen destination, or if they spread out evenly and infinitely in all directions (both absurd propositions). But you didn't think of that, because all of your talking points are plagiarized without a shred of understanding on your part.

Dude, give it up . Pasteur did not rule out abiogenesis, and fermis paradox is rejected on the whole as whimsy.


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

sparky said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Wasn't Arthur C. Clarke an atheist?  What did he get?


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Another assumption in regards to 4 B years, but according to Fermi, Drake and others, the superior ETs who could travel even at 15% the speed of light would've contacted us already.
> ...



Haha.  I just posted twice about PIPO (poo in, poo out).  Anyway, Pasteur showed abiogenesis was pseudoscience.  Otherwise, where is the evidence?  The experiment that we can observe?  I say experiment because so far there aren't any.  Almost all of your evidence is not observable, not testable and not falsifiable.  Thus, it's not scientific.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> And I had to rebut successfully twice why you were wrong and a liar.


Of course, you know less than nothing about evolution or pasteur's work, while the global scientific community which does accepts abiogenesis as fact. So, when you plagiarize an insistence that Pasteur ruled out abiogenesis, you merely embarrass yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> I say experiment because so far there aren't any


Wrong again, there are many. Literally every single time we test one of the things that must happen during abiogenesis, we confirm it as not only possible, but likely. This is precisely what we would expect to find, when studying a process selected for by physical laws.

Dude, I know you think that just insisting you are right is a valid method, but it isn't. That is why you are an ineducated slob who knows less than nothing about any scientific topic, while scientists are scientists.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> 
> ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.



Of course there is. there's a very good chance that life exists in our solar system and is yet to be discovered. I'm sure life exists all over the universe. Just not sentient life.


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Why abiogenesis doesn't happen.  Only life begats life.  This is a fact unless you believe in mythical evolution or mythical aliens.

Pasteur's Experiment

The steps of Pasteur's experiment are outlined below:

First, Pasteur prepared a nutrient broth similar to the broth one would use in soup.


Next, he placed equal amounts of the broth into two long-necked flasks. He left one flask with a straight neck. The other he bent to form an "S" shape.










Image courtesy of William Harris
Then he boiled the broth in each flask to kill any living matter in the liquid. The sterile broths were then left to sit, at room temperature and exposed to the air, in their open-mouthed flasks.









Image courtesy of William Harris
After several weeks, Pasteur observed that the broth in the straight-neck flask was discolored and cloudy, while the broth in the curved-neck flask had not changed.









Image courtesy of William Harris
He concluded that germs in the air were able to fall unobstructed down the straight-necked flask and contaminate the broth. The other flask, however, trapped germs in its curved neck, preventing them from reaching the broth, which never changed color or became cloudy.









Image courtesy of William Harris
If spontaneous generation had been a real phenomenon, Pasteur argued, the broth in the curved-neck flask would have eventually become reinfected because the germs would have spontaneously generated. But the curved-neck flask never became infected, indicating that the germs could only come from other germs.

Pasteur's experiment has all of the hallmarks of modern scientific inquiry. It begins with a hypothesis and it tests that hypothesis using a carefully controlled experiment. This same process -- based on the same logical sequence of steps -- has been employed by scientists for nearly 150 years. Over time, these steps have evolved into an idealized methodology that we now know as the scientific method. After several weeks, Pasteur observed that the broth in the straight-neck flask was discolored and cloudy, while the broth in the curved-neck flask had not changed.

How the Scientific Method Works


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

Let's all laugh at this joker for a second. Here is his claim:

Biliogosts who have dedicated their lives to biology don't understand pasteur's work. But an uneducated slob creationist blogger and the uneducated along plagiarizing him do, and both have outsmarted the global scientific community.

Haha....embarrassing....


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > And I had to rebut successfully twice why you were wrong and a liar.
> ...





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I say experiment because so far there aren't any
> ...



Again and again and again, why are you so wrong?  Besides, abiogenesis can't get past creating proteins.  Only a cell can do that inside itself.  Not outside.  This is because of chirality of amino acids.


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Let's all laugh at this joker for a second. Here is his claim:
> 
> Biliogosts who have dedicated their lives to biology don't understand pasteur's work. But an uneducated slob creationist blogger and the uneducated along plagiarizing him do, and both have outsmarted the global scientific community.
> 
> Haha....embarrassing....



Just what are "Biliogosts?"  Haha.


----------



## sparky (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Clark was one of the 'big3' along with Asimov & Heinlein ,  between the 3 they ruled both sci-fi as well as non sci-fi writers world, along with many awards and accolades from peers and publishers

Clark basically ran with Femi's offerings ,conjecting on the probabilities of life in the universe juxtaposed to the physical realities assumably encountered

i read it almost 1/2 century ago, so cliff notes i am not 

~S~


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

sparky said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sparky said:
> ...


Fermi's paradox is a whimsical thought experiment that was not taken all that seriously by Fermi himself. For 70 years scientists have assembled a mountain of simple ideas that completely resolve/destroy the fake "paradox".  And it only referred to intelligent life, anyway.... something our boy JBond here seems to have no understanding of.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> Besides, abiogenesis can't get past creating proteins.


Says who?  Some creationist blogger who is as ignorant of all things science as you are? Did you mean to say that scientists have not yet passed this step?  You can't even articulate your own thoughts. This is because they are not your own thoughts, and instead are your best attempt at paraphrasing that creationist blogger you plagiarized that one time.... but cant quite remember when or where, as you are a serial plagiarist....



Did you just say that only a cell can create proteins?  Let's be crystal clear... is that your claim?  Because, as anyone who has ever read any of your posts and who knows you know less than nothing about science at all may guess... that's false.


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



These are just your assertions.  Can you back them up with anything?

Besides Fermi's paradox calculations, we have the Great Filter Theory of which we were discussing abiogenesis.  Thus, you are wrong again.  It must really bug you to lose an argument because you have started on ad hominems.

Great Filter
Great Filter - Wikipedia


This is getting to be a ridiculous conversation as whatever I say is not getting through to you because of your "faith-based" beliefs in aliens and abiogenesis.  These are like the flying spaghetti monster.  They only exist in your imagination.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 28, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


If they are using the Drake equation then they are ridiculously over optimistic.


----------



## tycho1572 (Dec 28, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> 
> ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.


When you consider the vastness of the universe, it’s kinda crazy to think earth is the only planet with life.
Think about it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

james bond said:


> These are just your assertions. Can you back them up with anything?


Of course I can, just as I explained very well why pasteur's findings don't rule out the general principle of abiogenesis over time as the origin of life. And I will be treated, in response, to the same ,embarrassing dancing and prancing on your part that shows making such effort is an utter waste of time. I am perfectly content to simply correct your errors (though not all, as I already have a full time job).



james bond said:


> Besides Fermi's paradox calculations,


There are no such calculations. Haha, look at poor JBond, trying to sound smart.



james bond said:


> Great Filter Theory


That is not a scientific theory, sorry. You have been lied to again . Furthermore, if you held your own submissions to the same standard you attempt hold mine (though you usually get it ass backwards wrong when you claim there is no evidence), you would not be posting whimsical thought experiments and presenting them as fact. You expose yourself as the snake oil salesmen you are to do so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 28, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> If they are using the Drake equation then they are ridiculously over optimistic.


The Drake equation is an exercise, based on arbitrary premises. It is not useful.


----------



## Flash (Dec 28, 2018)

tycho1572 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> ...




We think about it because we have been brainwashed with science fiction.  That clouds our thinking.

Real science right now says that the only life in the universe is here on earth.  Until we find it elsewhere and have another data point any speculation to the contrary, is just, well, speculation.


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

tycho1572 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> ...



Carl Sagan and many, many others have died thinking like you.  Aliens are imaginary creatures like the flying spaghetti monster.  Abiogenesis is pseudoscience, so the science is against you.


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > These are just your assertions. Can you back them up with anything?
> ...



Over time is really long time.  None of it is observable nor testable.  Thus, it's not evidence.  The evidence that you have is the evidence for God.  Moreover, I've told you before that you'll get a chance to do what you propose by watching something like a petri dish with primordial soup in it to see if living matter comes out of it in a billion years in the afterlife.  If not, rinse, wash and repeat.

My scientific theories are backed up by no aliens, no abiogenesis, fine tuning facts and solar wind.  Just admit that it's your imagination that has run wild and that you've been suckered in by sci-fi movies, books and media.  You'll end up saying that aliens are already here and getting ready to take over the planet .


----------



## Karl Rand (Dec 29, 2018)

james bond said:


> You'll end up saying that aliens are already here and getting ready to take over the planet .


If another advanced civilization,species or whatever exists it could ‘be with us’ in ways we can’t begin to imagine. We could simply be a form of entertainment for them triggered at the time of the Big Bang yet never encounter them. The vanity of our species is in the assumption any advanced alien civilisation would want to have anything to do with us face to face. We’d be better off trying to communicate with whales, squid and other intelligent species right here on planet earth. Maybe stop eating them first. Which leads to another scenario the sometimes runs through my twisted brain.. We may be part of a very advanced farming excercise eventually experiencing our creators arrive and debate which is the best way to kill and cook us. Stab us between the eyes or boil us alive ( as we do with lobsters)or maybe pickle us slowley in whatever.


----------



## sparky (Dec 29, 2018)




----------



## Erinwltr (Dec 29, 2018)

Flash said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> ...


Wrong in so many ways.


----------



## Erinwltr (Dec 29, 2018)

tycho1572 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> ...


He won't.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 29, 2018)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> 
> ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.


and in other news no one cares about...


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 29, 2018)

Given: life (as we know it) exists on Earth.
Given: Earth exists in an unimaginably vast universe.
Given: physical and chemical principles on Earth are part of that universe.
Given: life (as we know it) depends on these physical and chemical principles.
Then: life (as we know it) could exist elsewhere than on Earth.
What is 'alien' in such a logical conclusion?


----------



## sparky (Dec 29, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> What is 'alien' in such a *logical* conclusion?



_well_.....you've promoted the human existence to the _lofty _aspiration of _logical_ 4eyeM?

rather_ high_ order.....


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 29, 2018)

sparky said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > What is 'alien' in such a *logical* conclusion?
> ...


Well, some, anyway.


----------



## Flash (Dec 29, 2018)

Erinwltr said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...




So show me where there is life outside of earth.  Show me the money!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 29, 2018)

tycho1572 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> ...


Think about rocks and water writing Bach.


----------



## james bond (Dec 29, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > If they are using the Drake equation then they are ridiculously over optimistic.
> ...



It's based on probability theory.  What have you to replace it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 29, 2018)

Flash said:


> Real science right now says that the only life in the universe is here on earth.


Shameless, stupid lie.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 29, 2018)

james bond said:


> Over time is really long time. None of it is observable nor testable.


Yes, you have always struggled with this concept, because you are a young earth creationist. That's your problem . Elementary school children seem to be able to get it. Maybe grab yourself a juice box and a 5th grade science text.

And yes, it is testable.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 29, 2018)

Flash said:


> So show me where there is life outside of earth.


We will do our best.

But since you insist there is no life outside of earth, the burden lies on you. So,show us why.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Dec 29, 2018)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


The Fermi Paradox is a good start along with parts of the Great Filter theory. We are either the first intelligent species in the Galaxy or others go extinct by some nature cataclysm or do themselves in before they reach a certain level.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 29, 2018)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The Fermi Paradox is a good start along with parts of the Great Filter theory


No they aren't, they are thought experiments. I mean, you can find some interesting principles in there for debate, but it wouldn't be wise to accept either as conclusive.


----------



## james bond (Dec 29, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Over time is really long time. None of it is observable nor testable.
> ...



I did quite well in elementary school.  Did you?  

How do you test something that happens in a billion years?  A million years?

Darwin thought it up and didn't know how old the Earth and universe was and no way to find out.  Others did.  However, Darwin needed long time so no one could observe it to disprove him.  It's a similar argument with global warming.  Then Patterson found a way, but his assumptions were incorrect.  The facts are in 200,000 years we haven't observed anything the atheist scientists have claimed in regards to abiogenesis or macroevolution.  It just means that we haven't had aliens nor macroevolution for 200,000 years although your conspiracy buds say they are already here .

So the mountain of evidence that evos like to claim doesn't back up your claim because it doesn't exist.  It's very superficial.  Otherwise, you'd have an experiment that creates living matter from non-living matter.  If you can't demonstrate that, then no aliens.  This is why I am here.  I'm the one who can figure out these things with the help of creation science to show you real science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 29, 2018)

james bond said:


> I did quite well in elementary school.


Well sure, in your Jesus school. But you would fail a public school, 5th grade science test.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 29, 2018)

A lot of aliens have visited Earth.  But we don't have Shleemies, so they don't stay.


----------



## james bond (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I did quite well in elementary school.
> ...



I think any school would want me and my family.  Your choices would be limited.  Extremely limited.

Because you have not presented any science for abiogenesis.  You haven't presented any evidence for aliens.

While I presented Pasteur's experiment, fine tuning facts, solar wind and more.  These are all based on real science.  Not atheist science.

So, no point in NASA wasting money to send humans to Mars where they may die.  Just let the Chinese do it like Nike says in their slogan.  The Chinese make all their shoes already.

NASA is wrong.  They won't find life on Mars or evidence of past life because there wasn't any.  Simple as that.

Signs of Alien Life Will Be Found by 2025, NASA's Chief Scientist Predicts


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2019)

Flash said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> ...



But we see here that when conditions are right life is possible. And there are billions of other places too far for us to go see. Hell, we don’t even know what out there with mars. It’s too far from the sun to see that far. Or barely. In other words we don’t even know our own solar system let alone other places.

What if there are living things in Europa? That would be more evidence.

What if life once existed on mars? That would be even more evidence life happens when the conditions are right.

Even if it’s 1 in a billion that means there are hundreds of other worlds with life


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Even if it’s 1 in a billion that means there are hundreds of other worlds with life


*Make that trillions.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> A lot of aliens have visited Earth.  But we don't have Shleemies, so they don't stay.


I often wonder what I would do if I went to another world where we were superior to them. I like the idea that the Egyptian Pharos were from outer space but wouldn’t they have had better weapons? If they were aliens we would have seen a bigger leap in technology except they may have invented religions to control our minds and squashed such technology.

I also like the concept the aliens turned us on to gold. Today we have Fort Knox and several other places where we keep all the gold. Gold is very valuable to them too but they have us dig it up for them. One day they’ll come to collect if they haven’t already.

 Some think the rockafellors, J.P. Morgan’s, Carnegie, etc we’re aliens.

Some think aliens turned monkeys into humans 100,000 years ago. They came here and fucked monkeys.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Even if it’s 1 in a billion that means there are hundreds of other worlds with life
> ...


And then cut that number down to how many are intelligent? Maybe the number is only 12. 

How many are smart enough to travel to the other 11? Maybe zero


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2019)

So do you believe


Weatherman2020 said:


> Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> 
> ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.


Do you believe the people who claim they have been abducted?


----------



## Pilot1 (Jan 2, 2019)

If there are Space Aliens out there, and they do come to Earth, NASA would either Tax them, or make them vote Democrat, or both.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Pilot1 said:


> If there are Space Aliens out there, and they do come to Earth, NASA would either Tax them, or make them vote Democrat, or both.


Well, given they will be highly educated, they will naturally tend to vote democrat all on their own.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > If there are Space Aliens out there, and they do come to Earth, NASA would either Tax them, or make them vote Democrat, or both.
> ...


They will know man made global warming is real

They’ll know trickle down doesn’t work. Tried it themselves.

Better hope they aren’t nra members

They’ll know organized religions are made up

They won’t care if you are gay or if you abort


----------



## fncceo (Jan 2, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of aliens have visited Earth.  But we don't have Shleemies, so they don't stay.
> ...



It's interesting to believe we're connected to the stars through a line of visitors.  But, the simple truth is, we did everything we did (good and bad) on our own.

Many people believe that ancient peoples had no knowledge to create, design, and build ancient wonders but in fact, they did.  The vast potential of humans to create new and better ways of doing things has been proven over and over again.

Space travel comes at a cost, a great cost, in time, material, and energy.  Going across dozens of light years to obtain gold would be like traveling to the moon to get sand.  Things are only valuable if they are rare.  If you find a limitless supply of gold, gold become worthless -- something Spain learned at great cost in the 17th century.

As prosaic as it might seem, there is enough greatness in the average human to explain everything from the wheel to quantum physics.  And, as a species, we're only getting started.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 2, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Pilot1 said:
> ...



On the other hand, they might feel that a species as backwards as ourselves should be forced to harvest cotton for them.

You never know what an advanced civilization might believe ...

... as these guys discovered.


----------



## anotherlife (Jan 2, 2019)

For some aliens, humans are speciality food.  But their hunting methods are unorthodox, they start with abduction.


----------



## fncceo (Jan 2, 2019)

anotherlife said:


> For some aliens, humans are speciality food.  But their hunting methods are unorthodox, they start with abduction.



Aliens will come here to serve us.


----------



## anotherlife (Jan 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > For some aliens, humans are speciality food.  But their hunting methods are unorthodox, they start with abduction.
> ...



Thanks.  Now I know why Obama used to have sex with the lizard types of them.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

sealybobo said:
			
		

> They came here and fucked monkeys.


By The Time They Got Here
They Were All So Horribly In-Bred
They Couldn't Help It


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

sealybobo said:
			
		

> Do you believe the people who claim they have been abducted?


What Difference Does It Make
Abductees Don't Know What The Abductors Are
Or Where They're From


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > That makes no sense. If there is a chance of Alien life outside of the Earth, it would be impossible to prove those Aliens have not visited Earth.
> ...


Yet they cannot even prove that life on earth, originated on earth. Our oldest native ancestors might in fact be "extraterrestrials"...


----------



## fncceo (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Our oldest native ancestors might in fact be "extraterrestrials"...



On a cellular level, you might be correct.  It is a competing theory on the origin of life on Earth.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Pretty darn good; since a collection of atoms did just that...


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

fncceo said:
			
		

> Many people believe that ancient peoples had no knowledge to create, design, and build ancient wonders but in fact, they did.  The vast potential of humans to create new and better ways of doing things has been proven over and over again


And Knowledge Can Be Lost
And Re-Discovered

Evolutionarily, We Are Exactly The Same Today 
As Mere 5,000yrs Ago
Their Geniuses Had The Same Brains As Our Geniuses


----------



## Pilot1 (Jan 2, 2019)

If they do come here, I will threaten to engage the Corbomite Maneuver.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Yet they cannot even prove that life on earth, originated on earth.


So what? Such a thing would not have to be proven for abiogenis to be a foregone conclusion, or for one to determine that life has likely formed more than once in the universe.

"Oldest native ancestors"

Why would there be any need of aliens to exain such a thing? We can follow the evolution of all apes, including humans, on a smooth continuum back through the fossil record.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Really!?

So all I need to do is put the equivalent amount of atoms in a Tupperware bowl and it writes music!


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Yet they cannot even prove that life on earth, originated on earth.
> ...


Our oldest native ancestors go much, much farther back than apes...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> Evolutionarily, We Are Exactly The Same Today
> As Mere 5,000yrs Ago
> Their Geniuses Had The Same Brains As Our Geniuses


As it turns out, that may not be entirely correct:
Has Modern Experience Changed The Human Brain?


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Were the atoms that did what you ask; placed in a Tupperware bowl?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Our oldest native ancestors go much, much farther back than apes..


Yes, any two species on Earth share a common ancestor. That's one of the fundamental ideas of evolution. So what you just said still doesn't have much bearing on anything.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Yet they cannot even prove that life on earth, originated on earth.
> ...


So have ice, and amino acids. What's your point?


----------



## fncceo (Jan 2, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Given enough atoms, enough time, enough sex, and enough death... atoms can do a lot. They can even invent Tupperware (tm).


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Our oldest native ancestors go much, much farther back than apes..
> ...


Or you don't get it... I'll bet on me for the win...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...




What's yours? I made my point...there is no need of your alien hypothesis to explain anything at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Or you don't get it... I'll bet on me for the win...


I have done nothing but invite you to make your arguments. So do so.... Or, just sit there and keep declaring how awesome they are.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


...anymore than the need for native genesis...
Existence is. It needs not...


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Yet they cannot even prove that life on earth, originated on earth.
> ...


Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, people were smarter 5,000 years ago. Part of the decay process of nature.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> ...anymore than the need for native genesis...


It's not that anyone needs for "native genesis" to be true, it's just that there is zero reason to believe otherwise, at this point. It wouldn't undermine any of our fundamental theories or laws if abiogenis  occured elsewhere, and earth was somehow "seeded" with life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Haha, yeah, that was hilarious when you embarrassed yourself in your own thread about that topic. You never did manage to understand what the study was saying. Good times.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Uh.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > ...anymore than the need for native genesis...
> ...


There is just as much evidence to the contrary. None...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> There is just as much evidence to the contrary. None..


False. We can trace the origins of life on this planet back to when the planet became somewhat habitable. This would seem to indicate that life formed here as soon as it got the chance. 

Furthermore, we have found evidence of life that is just about as simple as life gets without becoming merely constituent chemicals/membranes, which would make sense, as those would not leave evidence for us to find. This also would seem to indicate that abiogenesis  occured here on Earth.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 2, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Why would an atom invent Tupperware?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > There is just as much evidence to the contrary. None..
> ...


Uh uh.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > There is just as much evidence to the contrary. None..
> ...


Not really. We've never witnessed life form on earth. And what's more... If genetics are correct... It happened only once. One singular example... Not too convincing an argument to support that conditions on earth were right for the formation of life. If it were... Countless examples would have been created from this fertile Eden.
But no... One single genetic strand is all that has ever been witnessed, and it's subsequent mutations, and evolution...


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jan 2, 2019)




----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


And mutations created perfection, because we all know mutations are good in our babies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> We've never witnessed life form on earth.


So what? We have also never witnessed the ignition of fusion at the center of a star. We have also never seen an electron. That is an absurd standard you have dusted off for an overwrought, far fetched claim of yours.



Vastator said:


> And what's more... If genetics are correct... It happened only once.


No, it just happened that one type became dominant, as it was more fit for persistence. This is precisely what we would expect to happen, when selection operates on a system. That does not mean other types of life did not form. In fact, they almost certainly did, depending on the working definiton of "life". There is only so much material  available for interaction and incorporation. Naturally, the more persistent forms would be the most persistent forms and fill the niches at the expense of other types of life.

Also, once a very persistent form is in place, it becomes less likely for new types of life to form and persist, and for precisely the same reasons.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:
			
		

> Yet they cannot even prove that life on earth, originated on earth.


Or Life Would Have To Spring
From A Formerly Molten Sterile Rock

Currently, A Protein Can't Be Spontaneously Created
And Neither Can DNA



> Our oldest native ancestors might in fact be "extraterrestrials"...


Plausible....Entirely
The Hominids Digging Roots With Pointed Sticks
Flew Themselves In From Outta Space


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> Or Life Would Have To Spring
> From A Formerly Molten Sterile Rock


Yes, "spring", over 10s or 100s of millions of years and trillions upon trillions upon trillions of chemcial reactions....


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > We've never witnessed life form on earth.
> ...


You made that up whole cloth, and can offer no evidence what so ever to support your belief. Unless of course you intend to offer up examples of independently formed gentic strands unrelated to the only one we know... And we all know you can't.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> You made that up whole cloth, and can offer no evidence what so ever to support your belief.


I didn't make up a word of it, but rather gleaned it from reading about selection. It is foreign to you because you haven't lifted a finger to educate yourself on this topic. You should, it's fascinating...it unifies everything we observe, life or otherwise. The same basic principle (selection) that causes the shape of the water molecule forced life to form. Very elegant.

The fact that one type of life dominates is, in no way, evidence for seeding of life, as it can be simply explained by other methods we already know to be fact (no matter the source of these explanations). That's the point.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Unless of course you intend to offer up examples of independently formed gentic strands


That's a logical error on your part. At no time would I have to produce other types of life to posit a simple explanation for why only one type dominates the planet. Please slow down.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> > Or Life Would Have To Spring
> ...


Chemical Reactions Can't Spontaneously "spring" Forth DNA Or Protein
No Matter How Hard You Wish Upon A Star


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > You made that up whole cloth, and can offer no evidence what so ever to support your belief.
> ...


Lol... That's the difference between you and I. I know what I don't know. You on the other hand do not; and throw in the proverbial "God of the gaps" to bring you comfort. I don't mind not knowing... That's what drives me to search. You on the other hand quit looking, because you've convinced yourself that you've "found it" so to speak. Pride.... Lol... Have at it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> Chemical Reactions Can't Spontaneously "spring" Forth DNA Or Protein


Of course they can, what a silly thing to say.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Unless of course you intend to offer up examples of independently formed gentic strands
> ...


Run faster. Your claim is still right behind you...


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:
			
		

> We can follow the *evolution of all apes, including humans*, on a smooth continuum back through the fossil record.


All Apes Are Primates
But Not All Primates Are Apes

Humans Aren't Apes
Never Were


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Excuse you, crybaby. I did not insist that abiogenesis occured here, or that the planet was not seeded with life. What I did was propose simple explanations for life as we see it that don't involve seeding, along with circumstantial evidence that points to abiogenesis here. I quite well made the point that, when something can be more simply and easily explained by a set of ideas 'A', then it becomes NOT EVIDENCE for set of ideas 'B'. I undermined your claims of evidence by explaining them in other ways, in a more simple manner, using facts we know.

But when you are done complaining, maybe you can show us something that could not possibly be explained by abiogenesis or is much more likely explained by "seeding"...you know, since you have at hand such awesome arguments, as you made sure to point out earlier.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Humans, of course, are apes. And birds are dinosaurs. There, now you can pass a 7th grade science test.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:
			
		

> And mutations created perfection, because we all know mutations are good in our babies.


Predators Are Wired To
Eliminate Mutations


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:
			
		

> Of course they can, what a silly thing to say.


Do It
And Collect Your Nobel Prize


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do what?


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:
			
		

> Humans, of course, are apes.


Present Anthropologists That Agree With You





> And birds are dinosaurs.


That's A Theory
But Just A Theory

Now Tell Me How The Yucatan Asteroid
Wiped Dinosaurs Out Is Science


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Sure; here's one possibility... Rather than your supposed multiple genesis's, and the subsequent battles for singular supremacy; for which no evidence exists... It is plausible that a singular strand was at some point introduced into a competition free evironment, allowing its rapid growth, expansion, and evolution. Completely unopposed. There's more fossil evidence to support that theory; than one of countless independently coalesced life forms duking it out. Leaving only one strand to rule the world. It is a rather large world after all if you are a micro organism. The odds of all of them meeting in a battle royale to the death, prior to any of them branching out is quite fantastical a notion. The idea that only the kind that exists today having been the only to leave evidence of its existence is even more far fetched...


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


What You Said
DNA Can Be Spontaneously Created


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> That's A Theory
> But Just A Theory


See, you immediately reveal to everyone that you know less than nothing about science,vwhen you say something so stupid.


Gravity is alao "just a theory". Go test it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> DNA Can Be Spontaneously Created


Right...of course DNA could be created in nature, with enough time and the right conditions. So can anything we observe, obviously. But you have reserved a special, absurd standard for this one chemical, probably because of some sort of supertsition to which you cling.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> > That's A Theory
> ...


Dinosaurs Evolving Into Birds Is A Theory
Based On One Specie, That Is Not A Dinosaur
Found In Only One Place
And Humans Were Never Apes


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> It is plausible that a singular strand was at some point introduced into a competition free evironment, allowing its rapid growth, expansion, and evolution.


I agree fully, it is plausible. But it is also just as plausible that DNA did that while originating here, and was simply the most persistent model in an environment with few or no truly competing models.



Vastator said:


> The odds of all of them meeting in a battle royale to the death,


You're being too simple. There is no need to propose that they all formed and then fought it out at the same time. Rather, the most persistent form at the time it formed became dominant at the expense of other, less persistent forms, regardless of when these forms existed or appeared, be it before or after DNA appeared. In fact, it could be true that, had DNA not formed first, a later model that was, pound for pound, more fit and persistent would have ended up dominating the planet. But it formed in an environment that was already dominated by a sufficiently persistent model.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> Dinosaurs Evolving Into Birds Is A Theory
> Based On One Specie Found In Only One Place


100% false. There is a mountain of mutually supportive evidence that shows birds are the extant dinosaurs. You should just stop posting now and read a while.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:
			
		

> Right...of course DNA could be created in nature, with enough time and the right conditions.


No, It Can't
It's Beyond The Probability Of Chance
DNA Has To Exist In It's Entirety
For It To Work At All

Go Back To Eighth-Grade

What You Have Is Beyond Wishful Thinking
What You Just Presented Is Called "Faith"


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > It is plausible that a singular strand was at some point introduced into a competition free evironment, allowing its rapid growth, expansion, and evolution.
> ...


But there is no evidence of any other strand, or example. We do however have evidence of only one. Going on that evidence... Are we to believe that this fertile Eden was a one trick pony, only capable of producing a single strand; and lucky enough to survive long enough, to evolve  into what we see today? Or that this singular strand was but one, of many, like itself; which happened to end up on a fertile bit of planetary real estate..?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> DNA Has To Exist In It's Entirety
> For It To Work At All


So what? That's the result of countless tiny steps and changes, not a single, spontaneous event.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> But there is no evidence of any other strand, or example.


So what? It's just as plausible that dna was persistent and had little no no real competition. There doesn't need to be evidence of another model (even thougheven though one may exist and we wouldn't know it if we saw it). Especially if this poor model was all but eradicated.



Vastator said:


> Are we to believe that this fertile Eden was a one trick pony,


No, and we have covered that many times already. You simply do not have good reason to insist that to be true, if one says abiogenesis occured here. The only argument for this you have proposed is that other models don't exist here, as far as we know. However, that is easily explained away by selection, and just the type of selection that would cause a dominant, most-persistent model to form in the first place. Therefore, this is just not good evidence or argument for what you are proposing, as it is just as simply, in fact more so, explained another way.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> karpenter said:
> 
> 
> > DNA Has To Exist In It's Entirety
> ...


DNA Can't Evolve Itself Into Existence
It Has To Be There All At Once In Working Order


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

karpenter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > karpenter said:
> ...


I heard you the first 10,000 times.

That little round thing you are reading my post with? That eyeball also does not function properly, if not all there at once. Now, i want you to watch this great video, originally meant for children, about the evolution of the eye:


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

New DNA Can't Be Created With-Out Protein
And New Protein Can't Be Created With-Out DNA

And Neither Can Be Spontaneously Created
At ALL

DNA Can't Evolve Itself Into Existence


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > But there is no evidence of any other strand, or example.
> ...


Selection infers competition. There is no evidence of a competitor...


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

An Eye-Ball Is Not A Strand Of DNA

And An Eye-Ball Didn't Evolve Into An Animal


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Selection infers competition


With other extant or future models of life? Not necessarilly. That is a spurious, arbitrary claim by you. The structure of DNA was most certainly selected for, maybe or maybe not at the expense of other extant or future models. The shape of the water molecule is also "selected for". The only "competition" there is other shapes of the water molecule (which can exist, under varying conditions, as they them become "selected for" under those conditions).  Stars are "selected for" under the right conditions, and "selected against" in others. There is no need for extant, competing star models to exist and be somehow defeated by the spheroid stars we observe.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Selection infers competition
> ...


A theory I've often considered myself, if I understand you correctly... And if so... If life requires a lock step formation process... And at its most basic form, is always arranged the same way... Then life across the universe, no matter where, or when... Would have had  "identical" ancestors. An interesting theory. But one that begs the question... If earth is capable of sustaining life... Or even forming it, as some believe... Why is it not doing so? It seems that periodically this prime life form would keep presenting itself through formation, at various times, and places, through out earths history as conditions change...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

So, these mythical alien lifeseeders... I have some questions for them:

1) How did you orchestrate all of the known mass extinction events though such varying methods, and how did you know which animals would come out on top, creating a circuitous, evolutionary path leading to modern humans?

2) A gamma ray burst could eradicate modern humans and could have eradicated one of their ancestral species. Can you really see the future, and know when all gamma Ray bursts will happen throughout the Galaxy?

3) Why do we observe so many superior traits in other animals that could benefit us? I mean, holding one's breath for more than 3 minutes would come in awfully handy. So would being able to eat less, or being able to regenerate fingers.

4) Why are we so goddamned helpess and fragile, on a planet with such varying environments? About 90% of the environments on Earth would kill us, after some time of exposure. But those damn insects get to wander half the planet. No fair.


----------



## james bond (Jan 2, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



We know that conditions are not right with chemical abiogenesis.  That was demonstrated in 1953.

Thus, we are left with organic abiogenesis.  Yet, life only begats life.  Not non-life begats life.  However, the atheist scientists keep coming up with ways to get funding.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 2, 2019)

james bond said:
			
		

> However, the atheist scientists keep coming up with ways to get funding.


Richard Dawkins ??


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

"However, the atheist scientists "

I.E., the scientists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 2, 2019)

Vastator said:


> And at its most basic form, is always arranged the same way.


That's where you lose me.... I see no good reason to rely on such an assertion. That would merely explain back to us life only as we know it already . It's circular. (I assume, by "same way", you mean the building blocks themselves are the same, all over the universe. Therefore, all are DNA, as there is DNA here.)



Vastator said:


> If earth is capable of sustaining life... Or even forming it, as some believe... Why is it not doing so?


How do you know it is not? The process to life here likely took millions if not 10s or 100s of millions of years. Much of the organic matter on the planet is currently tied up in biomass, so we should not expect life as we know it to form so readily now as it once did. And any type of nascent life or its primordial constituents would have to displace extant life, which we know is literally everywhere.

It is likely more correct to say life is ALWAYS forming, everywhere it can. But certain things stop it and slow it down, not the least of which could be extant life.

It would not be silly to say that, on another planet, a model similar to DNA may be slowly forming and take a couple billion years to persist and meet a working definition of life. Just as plausible is to think that many times throughout the universe this process was halted almost entirely by cataclysmic events. Your warm friendly star exploding would be no fun for any extant life, or primordial constituents on their way to becoming life.

Interestingly enough, we look at exploded stars everywhere and find exactly what we thought we might find: necessary chemical  constituents of life as we know it.


----------



## james bond (Jan 3, 2019)

karpenter said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dawkins isn't funded directly per se, but he makes his bread from book sales, science career as well as television and film appearances.  His tv shows and appearances would be funded by those who stand to make money through supporting him.  .


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 3, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> 
> ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.


Alien life has visited Earth more than once and one of those space traveling creatures are called Tardigans.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, these mythical alien lifeseeders... I have some questions for them:
> 
> 1) How did you orchestrate all of the known mass extinction events though such varying methods, and how did you know which animals would come out on top, creating a circuitous, evolutionary path leading to modern humans?
> 
> ...


All your questions presuppose that the seeding of earth was intentionally orchestrated by a sentient species... I never posited such a notion. Personally I find such a theory unlikely...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2019)

karpenter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think a scientist figured out how many it would take to prevent inbreeding. I thought the number would have been ten or 40 but I guess you would need over 100 people to prevent inbreeding


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2019)

Moonglow said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> ...


Tardigrades


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > And at its most basic form, is always arranged the same way.
> ...


Why is it that I lose you there? The only evidence we have supports this...
Why would the existence of life stop the formation of new basic life? Ice exists, yet new ice still forms. There isn't any proof that the existence of a life form renders impossible the formation of new life.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


I love me some tardigrades. The best proof we have to date that micro organisms can, and have survived exposure to open space.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Well I was close and it's late or early..


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Panspermia to this point is a valid theory worthy of pursuit. All the mechanisms involved in panspermia are demonstrable, and observable. From micro organisms surviving open space travel, to extra planetary material arriving here on earth. Many rocks of Martian origin for instance have been found in earth.
Here's a link. I just pick one at random to give those new to the theory the gist of what panspermia theory entails...

Panspermia Theory


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> Dawkins isn't funded directly per se, but he makes his bread from book sales


Yes, and great books they are! His "The Selfish Gene" book is an amazing read and revolutionized biology.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Why is it that I lose you there?


Because it os an arbitrary, spurious assumption.


Vastator said:


> The only evidence we have supports this...


Which is silly, since we haven't even gathered evidence anywhere else or anything resembling a representative sample. That's no different than assuming all solar systems are just like ours, when you haven't observed any other star systems. An obvious error.


Vastator said:


> Why would the existence of life stop the formation of new basic life?


Easily...by consuming it, or bu denying it resources. Go ahead, spit in a carp pond...what happens? What happens when dog food is set out for a dog? It becomes dog.



Vastator said:


> There isn't any proof that the existence of a life form renders impossible the formation of new life.


No doubt. But there is good argument that it would hinder it, both by consuming it and by making scarce the materials it needs to form in the first place, as these materials would be already tied up in extant biomass.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:


> All your questions presuppose that the seeding of earth was intentionally orchestrated by a sentient species...


Correct, which is why I prefaced it precisely that way. It was a fun thought exercise, and a pretty good demonstration of the absurdity that life was seeded here intentionally with the intent to eventually create humans.

It appears all that you are suggesting is that abiogenesis happened elsewhere, and DNAfound it's way here by chance.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that I lose you there?
> ...


That's a lot of reaching...


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > All your questions presuppose that the seeding of earth was intentionally orchestrated by a sentient species...
> ...


Where you could have conjured such an unlikely, and fanciful notion; I cannot imagine. One thing is for sure... It doesn't stem from anything I offered to this discussion...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:


> That's a lot of reaching...




It is simple, observable fact that the earth's biomass both ties up and consumes most of the available organic matter .That's why our seas are not organic chemical soup, as they once were .

But, you are invited to tell me what about any of that is a "reach". Maybe you can even produce a shred of evidence to back up that claim. But I seriously doubt it.

"Reaching" is to assume all life in the universe is based on DNA. "Reaching" is to make a silly assumption that the fossil record supports the idea of panspermia, which is an absurd claim. You are the one reaching for whimsical ideas, while I am the one easily and simply explaining everything with known facts.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > That's a lot of reaching...
> ...


All of earths biomass isn't "tied up" in living organisms. The notion is absurd. It would require a weight based life death scale, that would prohibit births of new creatures until others die. While somewhat true for other reasons... It has nothing to do with total amount of biomass.
And the idea that every creature that coelesced has been eaten requires a series of unprovable assumptions.
One being the admission that life has, and/or continues to coelesce.
Springboarding from that one has to assume that each and every one was fodder for the "locals". Ultimately culminating in no chance for survival. Yet predators, and prey live in balance throughout all eco systems.

Your theory... While not "impossible"... I find lacking in the probability department.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that I lose you there?
> ...





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > That's a lot of reaching...
> ...


Actually... I showed how the fossil record calls into serious question, the theory that earth was capable of producing life.
The living record however... showing only one singular common ancestor is the intriguing aspect that makes panspermia a theory worthy of consideration...


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that I lose you there?
> ...


That's a ludicrous claim. We've observed literally billions of stars, and can calculate their weights, orbits, and compositions. And e an when it comes to other solar systems we can make many sound predictions based on proven mathematics, and physics. The only thing that changes from system to sytem is the proportions, and arrangements of the components. With just a little info we can accurately predict quite a lot. The laws of physics don't change anywhere but a black hole. Even that is debateable...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:


> All of earths biomass isn't "tied up" in living or


I didn't say all. In fact, I have usually y qualified it to say "much". And that is a fact. And what that does it make it more scarce.

And the extant biomass will consume much of the free biomass. Also fact.

The result of this would be to hinder any different types of life that may form, greatly slowing or even renders impossible this lengthy process.



Vastator said:


> It has nothing to do with total amount of biomass.


Of course that would affect the odds of a successful abiohenesis and the speed. It would be absurd to say otherwise.



Vastator said:


> Actually... I showed how the fossil record calls into serious question, the theory that earth was capable of producing life.


At no point did you show such a thing. And the claim is prima facie absurd, as it presupposes that you have been divined information that scientists have not. The fossil record, on the contrary, seems to indicate that life formed here as soon as it was able. Not a billion years later, as one may expect drom "seeding". But as soon as it was able. The fossil and geological records support this idea, not your whimsical claims to the contrary.



Vastator said:


> And the idea that every creature that coelesced has been eaten requires a series of unprovable assumptions.


Or, simply died. And the process may not have even made ot that far, being disturbed at every step by extant life.



Vastator said:


> That's a ludicrous claim. We've observed literally billions of stars, and can calculate their weights, orbits, and compositions.


Which is why I said,"Before observing other star systems" . You really need to slow down.

The evidence that you claim to present is not evidence at all for your claim, as it is more easily and simply explained away while keeping abiogenesis on Earth intact. You are not really meeting the challenge of this simple principle. Finding a spilled glass of milk is not evidence that a unicorn was in your kitchen, when you can just explain it by pointing at the dog in your kitchen.

Your claims that the fossil record supports seeding are ridiculous.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

[QUOTE/]
 Not a billion years later, as one may expect drom "seeding". But as soon as it was able. The fossil and geological records support this idea, not your whimsical claims to the contrary.
[/QUOTE]
As soon as It was "able"? You now what conditions make genesis "able"? Do share...
It seems you are the one positing whimsical claims... You now know the the time table for both native genesis, and panspermia, as it pertains to dominating earth...? Do share...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:


> As soon as It was "able"? You now what conditions make genesi "able"? Do share...


Liquid water, bearable temperatures. This isn't rocket surgery. You can look this up. Yes, what a coincidence that it happened right when it was able. And not later, and never again.  

Those are known facts, and you embarrass yourself to call them "whimsical".  You have attempted this goofy characterization several times now, and it does not help your case or credibility.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > All of earths biomass isn't "tied up" in living or
> ...


I didn't make the claim you credit me for. So let's keep this in the level lest I bore of you...
What i did show is that the living record supports only one single example of life having ever existed on earth. Which shoots the theory of earth ever having been a hotbed of life creation to shit. While a single sample (which is what we actually can show) making it here, and being left to flourish unopposed has no gaping holes. In not claiming its a fact. But I find your theory requires many more leaps of faith than panspermia.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:


> You now know the the time table for both native genesis, and panspermia


Just abiogenesis. The only thing I know about panspermia is that it is possible. But not a shred of evidence supports it so far, while the evidence we do have, both theoretical and empirical, seems to easily exaplin the origin of life here without panspermia, and even seems to contradict it, at times.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:


> What i did show is that the living record supports only one single example of life having ever existed on earth.


Which is not surprising at all, and certainly is not evidence for seeding, as it can be easily and simply explained away by simpler methods.

And there you have it.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 3, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> 
> ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.




Actually, there is a CERTAINTY that life is out there, they now feel certain that it probably lives even deep inside Pluto with an outside just above absolute zero!  Indeed, we are Martians kicked off that planet billions of years ago as spores in a rock blasted by an asteroid that eventually found its way here.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as It was "able"? You now what conditions make genesi "able"? Do share...
> ...


Liquid water you say? How bout that!? I've got shit loads! So... What were the properties of this water? You know... Ph, salinity, what minerals were suspended in it...? Do tell us some of the facts you claim to have offered. You have my attention.
Bearable temperatures, you say...? Hmmm... Could we trouble you for those temperatures by any chance? You know... Since you're operating off of the "facts" and all... I'm curious. Educate me.
And you now know that it never happened again; when you previously claimed it could have, but was certainly eaten if it did. Could you direct me to those findings as well.
I'll ask why you aren't touring the circuit, while waiting for your Nobel later. But for now; answers to these so few questions will suffice. Shouldn't be too hard. Since... You know... They're facts, and all..


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > What i did show is that the living record supports only one single example of life having ever existed on earth.
> ...


Far from simple... 
Your supposition requires a great number of unsupported, and as of yet unproven assumptions, in order to be plausible.
Panspermia on the other hand has first hand verifiable evidence to its efficacy.
We know some micro organisms can go dormant in unfavorable conditions.
We know such organisms can reanimate when conditions are suitable.
We know planetary, and other material can be transfered across space. (look up at the moon tonight if you don't believe me).
We also know that organisms can travel through open space, and remain viable upon reaching a habitable environment. (see Tardigrades for recerence).
No, my dear girl... You have offered no facts. You offered beliefs, and you're welcome to them. You might even be right. But you certainly haven't offered any facts to support your beliefs. And the facts we are privy to, call Your beliefs into rather serious question...


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > You now know the the time table for both native genesis, and panspermia
> ...


We have no evidence that demonstrates that earth is capable of producing life, or ever had been.  It is only infered by many because it is present now...
We only have proof that it exists here now, and to some point in the past...
There is no evidence empiracle, or otherwise that demonstrates that it originally formed here....


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


But what you propose is even more insane. 

If we proved every solar system eventually produces life wouldn’t you just say only a god could be behind it?


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I highly doubt, (even categorically deny every solar system could/would) produce life.
The chances that I'd be so incurious as to chalk up the "why", to mythology, is even less...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Nonsense. Take for example our solar system. If there was once life on mars and if there is life in Europa, that would prove life is probably in every solar system. Or would you now say this entire solar system is gods chosen solar system?

And if You look and see no life that doesn’t mean there wasn’t life before or maybe it hasn’t formed yet.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


And actually you are right. Most stars are binary. That means they don’t have the stability to harbor life. 

Life is so rare we know of no other except us.

And things are so incredibly far that there may be no way of ever finding them. In fact stars are getting farther apart. One day we will only see a few stars


----------



## Vastator (Jan 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I don't do the "God" thing...


----------



## karpenter (Jan 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:
			
		

> I think a scientist figured out how many it would take to prevent inbreeding. I thought the number would have been ten or 40 but I guess you would need over 100 people to prevent inbreeding


Over Thousands Of Years Of Travel
Sure
They'll All Be Bonkers Before Pluto

They'll Get So Inbred
They Won't Be Able To Operate The Equipment
Before They're Anywhere

There's No Life At Proxima Centauri , Alpha Centauri
So Where's Their Coffin Headed Anyway


----------



## karpenter (Jan 3, 2019)

Vastator said:
			
		

> All your questions presuppose that the seeding of earth was intentionally orchestrated by a sentient species... I never posited such a notion. Personally I find such a theory unlikely...


The Theory I Saw
Is It Blew In On Comets
Still Doesn't Solve How Life Began

Chance And Selection Can't Form Live DNA
DNA Can't Have A Miss-Step Here, A Detour There

Random Chance Can't Form DNA
Anymore Than The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare
A Way Closer Comparison Than Indie's Eye-Ball


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 3, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Most stars are binary. That means they don’t have the stability to harbor life.



Not so.  A binary system will usually preclude the kind of close, stable orbit we associate with Earth allowing the development of higher life.  But AFAWK right now, there is every good possibility for everything from  primitive microbial life to sea creatures, in places ranging from deep in the Earth's crust, to the ocean floor in boiling hot vents to the coldest deep ice at the pole, to underground water and caves on Mars, to several of the moons around Jupiter and Saturn ( Europa, Titan, etc.), to now even including a possibility inside Pluto.  There is every reason to think such bodies can exist around most stars, even many binaries, especially considering that evidence suggests that many single stars like Sol actually originated in binary systems.

Extraterrestrial Life May be Common around Binary Stars


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 3, 2019)

karpenter said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The answer is simple, Karp-- -- -- life is what happens when left to its own designs, it is the nature of the universe to organize itself, given half the chance, into consciousness of itself.  From the moment the Earth cooled, life was inevitable.  Hammered, torched, frozen and battered over and over, it refuses to go away.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 3, 2019)

toobfreak said:
			
		

> The answer is simple, Karp-- -- -- life is what happens when left to its own designs, it is the nature of the universe to organize itself, given half the chance, into consciousness of itself.


What You Have There Is Called Faith
If It Gives Some People Better Sleep
Great

But What Is Consciousness ??
Let Me Guess...
Merely Chemical Reactions In An Organ
Because Someone Else Says That's All It Can Be
But Can't Explain Why/How It Works

So Your Wild Guess-Opinion
Is Just As Qualified As Their's



> into consciousness of itself.


Then There's The Universal Consciousness
This Is Where We Pretend On The Quantum Level
Anything You Make-Up Is Real


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 4, 2019)

karpenter said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, actually, it is called a lifetime of having studied the physical sciences, physics, biology, etc., along with the fact that I nearly became a professional astronomer but changed my mind in high-school for electrical engineering because I didn't want to spend my life either on a mountain top or at a university for low wages.  But I still both practice as well as teach astronomy on the side for pleasure.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2019)

karpenter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Off this rock because if we stay here we will eventually be doomed.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Most stars are binary. That means they don’t have the stability to harbor life.
> ...


I thought I heard what I said on how the universe works. Thanks


----------



## karpenter (Jan 4, 2019)

TOOBFREAK said:
			
		

> KARPENTER said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah,
So You've Actually Observed This Many Times:





> given half the chance, into *consciousness of itself*.


A *Miracle* Based On A Leap Of Faith
Big Fat Leap Based On Nothing
You Can't Show A Natural Chain Of Events To Consciousness
No One Can
Try The Phrase....*"I Don't Know"*


> From the moment the Earth cooled, life was inevitable


Because You And Everyone Else Have Observed This Everywhere
Though-Out The Skies, In All Biology Labs
And Know It To Be A Proven Fact
Because Life Is The Result Of Spontaneity
It Popped Up In A Sterile Petri Dish Before Your Eyes
It Happens Everywhere, All The Time

Why Is "I Don't Know" The Hardest Thing To Say
None Of The Above Is Even Close To Proven Fact
It's All A Fact, Only Because Someone Stated It Like It Is

Today We Have Beliefs, Based On Suppositions, Masquerading As Science
i.e., Faith


----------



## karpenter (Jan 4, 2019)

sealybobo said:
			
		

> Off this rock because if we stay here we will eventually be doomed.


Everyone Is Anyway
There Is No Universal Consciousness
We All Can Share After Death
Or We Would Know It In Our Conscience Now


----------



## james bond (Jan 4, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Panspermia to this point is a valid theory worthy of pursuit. All the mechanisms involved in panspermia are demonstrable, and observable. From micro organisms surviving open space travel, to extra planetary material arriving here on earth. Many rocks of Martian origin for instance have been found in earth.
> Here's a link. I just pick one at random to give those new to the theory the gist of what panspermia theory entails...
> 
> Panspermia Theory



These microorganisms perish in space.  They cannot survive.  The heartier ones ended up suspended had to return to Earth to live again.  The fine tuning facts and the solar winds do them in.


----------



## james bond (Jan 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Dawkins isn't funded directly per se, but he makes his bread from book sales
> ...



That's probably the only book of his I read.  The rest I read passages.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Panspermia to this point is a valid theory worthy of pursuit. All the mechanisms involved in panspermia are demonstrable, and observable. From micro organisms surviving open space travel, to extra planetary material arriving here on earth. Many rocks of Martian origin for instance have been found in earth.
> ...


Tardigrades have survived open space, and returned viable. That's open space. Which doesn't even broach the prospect of organisms shielded from hazards by being encased in ice, and rock...


----------



## james bond (Jan 4, 2019)

Vastator said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



Tardigrades won't survive the solar winds in space but minutes.  The dehydrated and suspended ones have to return to Earth to live again.  While they get a hat tip for providing us with more research into these resilient microbes and how they could help humans, the fine tuning facts and solar winds prevent panspermia.  One of the reasons why there are no aliens.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


The fine tuned universe, is itself a theory. Often a deistically oriented/theological one. Brought to the fore by people who feel compelled to conflate the scientific, with the religious. Typically from the "intelligent design" crowd. Not really a point of interest for me personally.
 As for solar winds; the insides of comets, and asteroids likely offer more than ample protection from exposure given their high metallic, and ice content.


----------



## james bond (Jan 5, 2019)

Vastator said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



The fine tuning facts.  Atheist science discovered it trying to describe the Big Bang Theory, but now do not want anything to do with it because it goes against evolution.  What kind of science is that?  Fake science.

The theory that creation science has is the Bible theory or Genesis theory.  However, today's secular science has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible.  They treat it as if were religion and not science.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  The Bible is a history and non-fiction book.  This is why I am here.  The way I learned science was that it was about argument.  Whoever makes the best argument wins.  Usually, it ends up as creation vs. evolution or what I like to call creation science vs. atheist science.

So far, the facts that we observe favor the creation science theory.  There are no aliens.  Not even one microbe.  This is due to no abiogenesis.  We also have the fine tuning facts, solar wind, Fermi's paradox, Drake equations and more.  This means no panspermia.


----------



## james bond (Jan 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Off this rock because if we stay here we will eventually be doomed.



I'll stay right here or go live on a nice space station.  This is the best place to be for us.  The more I discuss science with my anti-science "friends," the more I realize that we may never become multiplanetary.  We, as a race, will face the extinction event right here on Earth.  Of course, we even disagree on what causes the extinction.  Atheist scientists think it will be climate change while most creation scientists think it will be a gamma ray burst setting the Earth on fire as described in the final days.

Here is video describing the various scenarios:


----------



## 22lcidw (Jan 5, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I love the space program. We have spent countless billions on unmanned spacecraft and landers on Mars. You'd think we would find a molecule.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Off this rock because if we stay here we will eventually be doomed.
> ...


I watched a Star Trek movie where they had an artificial planet. The enterprise flew into a docking station. The planet was not round but there was a round ozone around the entire thing. Inside you could breathe air. There were several huge slabs of land the size of cities where people lived but they weren’t separated by oceans. I could see building one of these as a backup to earth. It would orbit the same distance from the sun we are but it would be half way around the sun. On the other side. We would build this using material from the meteor belt.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2019)

22lcidw said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


We are looking. But yea I agree hurry up and find out. I’m impatient too. I think the lander that just landed is looking.

And we landed on a meteor recently right? Maybe that ice will be carrying tardigrades. 

Some want to go drill into Europa and put a submarine into its oceans.

There are scientists begging republican politicians for the money to go look but they say no. It’s as if they don’t want their bible thumping constituents to know


----------



## karpenter (Jan 6, 2019)

No,
They're Trying To Save You From Yourself

Who Are You Going To Force To Go To Mars
Let Alone Jupiter
Anyone Claiming They Want To Go
Hasn't Thought Anything Through
And Knows They Will Never Have Too


----------



## there4eyeM (Jan 6, 2019)

The idea that any significant number of our species could migrate through space to another planet or such is pure fantasy.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 6, 2019)

But...
Didn't You Watch _Battlestar Galactica ??_


----------



## james bond (Jan 6, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Yeah, the people who work on the ISS must've thought of these things.  Do they float around inside or did they create some kind of gravity so they can walk upright?


----------



## james bond (Jan 6, 2019)

there4eyeM said:


> The idea that any significant number of our species could migrate through space to another planet or such is pure fantasy.



Why?  People are trying to put a refueling station on the moon.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


On Star Trek the inside was the exact atmosphere as here on earth. There was a man made ozone protecting and surrounding the man made planet.

I bet future humans could accomplish this. You don’t believe it?

Imagine what people 500 years ago would think about everything we can do today. They wouldn’t believe. Now think about what people will have accomplished 500 years from now. We wouldn’t believe it either.


----------



## karpenter (Jan 6, 2019)

sealybobo said:
			
		

> I bet future humans could accomplish this. You don’t believe it?


Nope
Nothing Even Comes Close To Creating A Habitable Planet



> Imagine what people 500 years ago would think about everything we can do today. They wouldn’t believe. Now think about what people will have accomplished 500 years from now. We wouldn’t believe it either.


Ah, Yes
The Ol' Catch-All "Future Technology" Myth

Catch This:
There Will Never Even Be
A Continually Manned Station On Mars
Give Up Everything, To Have Nothing
Forget Jupiter Altogether


----------



## james bond (Jan 7, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



We should be able to make an ozone layer, i.e. gaseous layer, but not sure how we get it up high into the stratosphere.  You really don't want the air pollution near the surface.  In a self-contained space station, theoretically we can create a force similar to gravity even though it wouldn't be exactly gravity.  Gravity is still a mystery as it only attracts.  Everything else has an equal and opposite force except gravity.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Clones drones robots and artificial intelligence will build it for us. We can be in the robots body just put the goggles on in your chair bam you’re running the robot around mars. Virtual reality but the robot is doing everything you do. We already have this technology.

We don’t even have to send humans till it’s done.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 7, 2019)

Imagine having a small moon size artificial planet circling the sun same as earth only it’s on the other side so they’ll never run into each other. The fake planet can be moved back or speed up so it will never hit earth.

And if a meteor ever wiped out life on earth the people on the fake planet could recolonize earth.


----------



## james bond (Jan 9, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Mars isn't a nice destination.  It has no ozone layer like we talked about and no magnetic field.  The solar wind is a killer, so probably do not want to send humans there, but NASA is planning to do so.  All to find a microbe or evidence of past life there.  It's not worth it when we know there are no aliens there and there never were.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Maybe there was once.  We don't know that there weren't.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 9, 2019)

Vastator said:


> So... What were the properties of this water? You know... Ph, salinity, what minerals were suspended in it...?


And why would this matter? I am not your assistant or your mommy or your science teacher. Make your point. If you have a point, you can make it yourself without my help.



Vastator said:


> And you now know that it never happened again


No i don't,and neither do you. It may have before and since and even right now. You keep trying to get away with interjecting your spurious, arbitrary claims as fact, while I merely have to rely on known facts to present a simpler explanation supported by all the evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 9, 2019)

Vastator said:


> We have no evidence that demonstrates that earth is capable of producing life, or ever had been.


Of course we do, the fact that life is here is evidence of this. And the conditions and materials required all existed and exist here. More evidence. In other words, all the evidence we have ever found. Yet again, you dance amd prance and make these grand, spurious claims as fact when, in fact, these ideas are your burden to argue. That's a snake oil salesmen trick older than dirt.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 9, 2019)

karpenter said:


> DNA Can't Have A Miss-Step Here, A Detour There


Of course it can, in an environment with literally trillions of reactions happening at the same time. Naturally, the most stable and persistent molecules persisted.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > We have no evidence that demonstrates that earth is capable of producing life, or ever had been.
> ...


State clearly what these conditions, and materials are. Be specific. You keep repeating this claim, yet offer nothing of substance. Time to put up, or shut up.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > So... What were the properties of this water? You know... Ph, salinity, what minerals were suspended in it...?
> ...


How could it not? The fact is neither you, or anyone else knows. It’s past time you come to accept that.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jan 10, 2019)

As life is present on Earth, the probability of life occurring in the universe is 100%. In fact, probability is not even the correct term. It is certain that life occurred, so it is certainly possible it could occur elsewhere. That is, if "elsewhere" is a correct assumption. "Everywhere" might really mean "right here". We may find that our way of looking at the universe, dividing it up into our perceptual packets, is truly illusion. That may be at the heart of "spooky action at a distance". We might have to look again at looking, see 'seeing' in a new way. Our fundamental approach may be so subtly wrong that we haven't realized it yet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 10, 2019)

Vastator said:


> State clearly what these conditions, and materials are.


No, just make your point.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 10, 2019)

Vastator said:


> How could it not? The fact is neither you, or anyone else knows.


Nor do I have to know to say the things I have ssaid.You're not making any point. And saying I don't know the salinity of the water 4 billion years ago does not undermine my point or do anything  to strengthen yours. So you're wasting your time


----------



## Vastator (Jan 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > State clearly what these conditions, and materials are.
> ...


My point is that youre making a claim. Now is the time to substantiate it. Don’t worry. We’ll wait...


----------



## Vastator (Jan 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > How could it not? The fact is neither you, or anyone else knows.
> ...


Not anymore...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 13, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


So why did life as we know it appear on Earth right about when it could, and not long before or later? Was an alien race watching our planet, waiting for the right time? Let's hear your explanation. Lay it out for us, and be specific. Then we can compare it to mine and all have a good laugh afterward at the expense of your explanation.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 13, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You keep saying “could”. Which is completely meaningless unless you know the parameters in which life can form. And you don’t. Which is quite the point. That said... Being you find victory in having the “last word” (which is why you wait days to reply) I’ll allow you the last word in our discourse here. Keep on “Winning”...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 13, 2019)

Vastator said:


> You keep saying “could”. Which is completely meaningless unless you know the parameters in which life can form.




We can set a limit regarding liquid water and temperature (which are, essentially, the same thing). We know that the earth was molten before a certain point.

Now again...:

Why did life appear so soon after this, if seeding is the origin? Why not, say, 1 billion years later? Why not, 2 billion ? Coincidence? Clearly it could not have happened sooner.   The seeding happened, by chance, to occur then, and not much sooner or later? Certainly that is possible, but seems like quite a leap to take when another, much simpler idea explains it quite neatly: abiogenesis from extant constituents due to selection.

And ironically, you still have to acquiesce to abiogenesis from extant constituents on another planet in order to account for the seeds you say made their way here.

So, how do you account for this? Just coincidence? You have to insist abiogenesis happened somewhere at some time, but the same process happening here is not possible, to you? How do you also account for that?

You see the problems you create for yourself, here. I have just stated two, and I think you need to account for both.

"I don't know....coincidence?" is an acceptable answer. But then you are stuck a more complicated explanation that requires more leaps of coincidence than the much simpler explanation i offer.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 18, 2019)

Another step in understanding abiogenesis:

Origin of Life --"Complexity Can Emerge Spontaneously, Without Evolution" | The Daily Galaxy


----------



## beautress (Feb 1, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....
> 
> ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.


Mosquitoes are alien beings. And they suck our blood!


----------

