Alien Life? You better hope God exists!

[Boss]

IF there is life elsewhere, it lends validity to an argument for a Creator who orchestrated the parameters in which to make the life possible.

No, it would argue precisely the opposite. It would tell us that life likely formed to some degree and failed on literally trillions of other bodies in the universe, showing us that there is no "purpose" or "direction" to selection by physical forces.

Again, you are failing to comprehend how many variables had to come together for life to exist. In your tiny infantile mind, life is something that happens easily by mere chance. Even though, with a state-of-the-art genetic toolbox at your disposal, the ability to reconstruct any possible environmental conditions, you have consistently failed to reproduce even the most simple form of life from inorganic material.

What's more is, you have convinced yourself of this because you ultimately fear accountability for your actions. No other reason, it's not based in science or logic. Both of which would indicate something incredibly spectacular happened. Most intellectually objective people understand that, even if they disagree on incarnations of God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, you are failing to comprehend how many variables had to come together for life to exist.

Again you employ specious reasoning, often called "Hoyle's fallacy", by which the probability of any event in the universe can be reduced to zero. It is a fallacy, and you have built your entire argument upon it. The variables involved only matter when talking about life exactly as we see it on earth. They do not speak to the formation of life elsewhere.

 

[ABikerSailor]

IF there is life elsewhere, it lends validity to an argument for a Creator who orchestrated the parameters in which to make the life possible.

No, it would argue precisely the opposite. It would tell us that life likely formed to some degree and failed on literally trillions of other bodies in the universe, showing us that there is no "purpose" or "direction" to selection by physical forces.

Again, you are failing to comprehend how many variables had to come together for life to exist. In your tiny infantile mind, life is something that happens easily by mere chance. Even though, with a state-of-the-art genetic toolbox at your disposal, the ability to reconstruct any possible environmental conditions, you have consistently failed to reproduce even the most simple form of life from inorganic material.

What's more is, you have convinced yourself of this because you ultimately fear accountability for your actions. No other reason, it's not based in science or logic. Both of which would indicate something incredibly spectacular happened. Most intellectually objective people understand that, even if they disagree on incarnations of God.

Actually, you would be wrong. Scientists HAVE created life from artificial materials.

Scientists create new life form from scratch

For as long as life on Earth has existed, all of it has been made up of only four letters. DNA has been written in just those four letters – G, T, C and A – which together create the code that underlies every living thing ever known.


That's until now. Scientists have announced that they have created living organisms using an expanded genetic code. That could in turn lead to the creation of entirely new lifeforms, using combinations of DNA that couldn't possible have existed before.


Two researchers created a bacterium that not only uses the four natural bases, but also uses a pair of synthetic ones known as X and Y. In doing so, the researchers say that they have been able to "lay the foundation for achieving the central goal of synthetic biology: the creation of new life forms and functions".

 

[Boss]

Again, you are failing to comprehend how many variables had to come together for life to exist.

Again you employ specious reasoning, often called "Hoyle's fallacy", by which the probability of any event in the universe can be reduced to zero. It is a fallacy, and you have built your entire argument upon it. The variables involved only matter when talking about life exactly as we see it on earth. They do not speak to the formation of life elsewhere.

Well, it's the only example of life we have, currently. The "fallacy" is trying to ignore that fact and make something else be true because you want it to be true.

 

[sealybobo]

IF there is life elsewhere, it lends validity to an argument for a Creator who orchestrated the parameters in which to make the life possible.

No, it would argue precisely the opposite. It would tell us that life likely formed to some degree and failed on literally trillions of other bodies in the universe, showing us that there is no "purpose" or "direction" to selection by physical forces.

Again, you are failing to comprehend how many variables had to come together for life to exist. In your tiny infantile mind, life is something that happens easily by mere chance. Even though, with a state-of-the-art genetic toolbox at your disposal, the ability to reconstruct any possible environmental conditions, you have consistently failed to reproduce even the most simple form of life from inorganic material.

What's more is, you have convinced yourself of this because you ultimately fear accountability for your actions. No other reason, it's not based in science or logic. Both of which would indicate something incredibly spectacular happened. Most intellectually objective people understand that, even if they disagree on incarnations of God.

Actually, you would be wrong. Scientists HAVE created life from artificial materials.

Scientists create new life form from scratch

For as long as life on Earth has existed, all of it has been made up of only four letters. DNA has been written in just those four letters – G, T, C and A – which together create the code that underlies every living thing ever known.


That's until now. Scientists have announced that they have created living organisms using an expanded genetic code. That could in turn lead to the creation of entirely new lifeforms, using combinations of DNA that couldn't possible have existed before.


Two researchers created a bacterium that not only uses the four natural bases, but also uses a pair of synthetic ones known as X and Y. In doing so, the researchers say that they have been able to "lay the foundation for achieving the central goal of synthetic biology: the creation of new life forms and functions".

I’ve shown them this they call me an internet scientist

 

[ABikerSailor]

IF there is life elsewhere, it lends validity to an argument for a Creator who orchestrated the parameters in which to make the life possible.

No, it would argue precisely the opposite. It would tell us that life likely formed to some degree and failed on literally trillions of other bodies in the universe, showing us that there is no "purpose" or "direction" to selection by physical forces.

Again, you are failing to comprehend how many variables had to come together for life to exist. In your tiny infantile mind, life is something that happens easily by mere chance. Even though, with a state-of-the-art genetic toolbox at your disposal, the ability to reconstruct any possible environmental conditions, you have consistently failed to reproduce even the most simple form of life from inorganic material.

What's more is, you have convinced yourself of this because you ultimately fear accountability for your actions. No other reason, it's not based in science or logic. Both of which would indicate something incredibly spectacular happened. Most intellectually objective people understand that, even if they disagree on incarnations of God.

Actually, you would be wrong. Scientists HAVE created life from artificial materials.

Scientists create new life form from scratch

For as long as life on Earth has existed, all of it has been made up of only four letters. DNA has been written in just those four letters – G, T, C and A – which together create the code that underlies every living thing ever known.


That's until now. Scientists have announced that they have created living organisms using an expanded genetic code. That could in turn lead to the creation of entirely new lifeforms, using combinations of DNA that couldn't possible have existed before.


Two researchers created a bacterium that not only uses the four natural bases, but also uses a pair of synthetic ones known as X and Y. In doing so, the researchers say that they have been able to "lay the foundation for achieving the central goal of synthetic biology: the creation of new life forms and functions".

I’ve shown them this they call me an internet scientist

"Internet scientist"? That just shows they don't know what those two words mean in the way they tried to use them on you.

You're not the one doing the experiments, you are just telling others what scientists have accomplished.

If anything, you would be an "internet journalist" because you are reporting the stuff back to us on USMB, not an "internet scientist". If you were an internet scientist I would think you would be a hacker or a programmer.

 

[Boss]

IF there is life elsewhere, it lends validity to an argument for a Creator who orchestrated the parameters in which to make the life possible.

No, it would argue precisely the opposite. It would tell us that life likely formed to some degree and failed on literally trillions of other bodies in the universe, showing us that there is no "purpose" or "direction" to selection by physical forces.

Again, you are failing to comprehend how many variables had to come together for life to exist. In your tiny infantile mind, life is something that happens easily by mere chance. Even though, with a state-of-the-art genetic toolbox at your disposal, the ability to reconstruct any possible environmental conditions, you have consistently failed to reproduce even the most simple form of life from inorganic material.

What's more is, you have convinced yourself of this because you ultimately fear accountability for your actions. No other reason, it's not based in science or logic. Both of which would indicate something incredibly spectacular happened. Most intellectually objective people understand that, even if they disagree on incarnations of God.

Actually, you would be wrong. Scientists HAVE created life from artificial materials.

Scientists create new life form from scratch

For as long as life on Earth has existed, all of it has been made up of only four letters. DNA has been written in just those four letters – G, T, C and A – which together create the code that underlies every living thing ever known.


That's until now. Scientists have announced that they have created living organisms using an expanded genetic code. That could in turn lead to the creation of entirely new lifeforms, using combinations of DNA that couldn't possible have existed before.


Two researchers created a bacterium that not only uses the four natural bases, but also uses a pair of synthetic ones known as X and Y. In doing so, the researchers say that they have been able to "lay the foundation for achieving the central goal of synthetic biology: the creation of new life forms and functions".

*SIGH* Nope! Wrong, wrong, wrong! They did NOT create life from inorganic material!

The scientists did that by creating a special system in the bacteria that rejected any genetic sequence that didn't include the X or Y letters. ​

Bacteria is NOT inorganic! It's already ALIVE!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, it's the only example of life we have, currently. The "fallacy" is trying to ignore that fact

That is not a fact that informs our ideas on life elsewhere, except to narrow where and how we search for life. Reason being, we might not recognize life not like our DNA life, even if we saw it. There is no reason whatsoever to demand or believe that life can only happen one way. You are insisting this is true, so your entire argument is built on a fallacy AND an authoritative declaration for which you have no evidence, theoretical or otherwise.

 

[Boss]

That is not a fact that informs our ideas on life elsewhere, except to narrow where and how we search for life. Reason being, we might not recognize life not like our DNA life, even if we saw it. There is no reason whatsoever to demand or believe that life can only happen one way. You are insisting this is true, so your entire argument is built on a fallacy AND an authoritative declaration for which you have no evidence, theoretical or otherwise.

I'm not insisting ANYTHING is true OR false! What you are postulating is FAITH.... do you not understand that? You are quite literally rejecting known science and biology in favor of a faith-based hypothesis you cannot support. That's absolutely NO different than someone pontificating that God created everything.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, it's the only example of life we have, currently. The "fallacy" is trying to ignore that fact

That is not a fact that informs our ideas on life elsewhere, except to narrow where and how we search for life. Reason being, we might not recognize life not like our DNA life, even if we saw it. There is no reason whatsoever to demand or believe that life can only happen one way. You are insisting this is true, so your entire argument is built on a fallacy AND an authoritative declaration for which you have no evidence, theoretical or otherwise.

Actually, you can find life that we can't understand how it survives right here on Earth. They are called "extremophiles", and they live in places that would kill most other life on Earth.

Extremophile - Wikipedia

 

[sealybobo]

Well, it's the only example of life we have, currently. The "fallacy" is trying to ignore that fact

That is not a fact that informs our ideas on life elsewhere, except to narrow where and how we search for life. Reason being, we might not recognize life not like our DNA life, even if we saw it. There is no reason whatsoever to demand or believe that life can only happen one way. You are insisting this is true, so your entire argument is built on a fallacy AND an authoritative declaration for which you have no evidence, theoretical or otherwise.

I’ve explained that before too. He said the moon had to be just right and the dinosaurs had to be wiped out....He said too many things had to happen for us to be here.

I explained this isn’t the only way intelligent life might come to be. It’s use the way it happened here.

He then may accept another planet has birds fish reptiles and mammals but nothing intelligent like us. I’ll admit we are probably a bit more rare than common wild life but certainly I don’t think we are unique. That would be an ignorant and arrogant conclusion

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

inorganic material!

"Organic material" does not mean "alive material". It means compounds which contain carbon.

That is not a fact that informs our ideas on life elsewhere, except to narrow where and how we search for life. Reason being, we might not recognize life not like our DNA life, even if we saw it. There is no reason whatsoever to demand or believe that life can only happen one way. You are insisting this is true, so your entire argument is built on a fallacy AND an authoritative declaration for which you have no evidence, theoretical or otherwise.

I'm not insisting ANYTHING is true OR false! What you are postulating is FAITH.... do you not understand that? You are quite literally rejecting known science and biology in favor of a faith-based hypothesis you cannot support. That's absolutely NO different than someone pontificating that God created everything.

Yes, you are insisting on the logically absurd idea that our tiny sample implies anything about the rest of the universe, as far as restrictions on what life can be or how and where it can form. No, I am not rejecting any known science; that is a shameless lie on your part, meant only to add bluster to your pitifully weak argument built entirely on Hoyles Fallacy.. In fact, what known science tells us is that we live in a deterministic, material universe where life can form. These are the only constraints our empirical knowledge puts on this discussion. You are adding other constraints that were born in the depths of your colon because they "kinda, sorta" feel right . This is unscientific and irrational.

Look Boss, you have been making the same error since square one: Hoyles Fallacy. I pointed this out to you. This is not valid logic. But you dont care. Instead of learning about this and correcting your fatal error (and it is fatal, as your entire argument is rendered completely worthless by it), you simply stomp your feet, repeat your error, then add personal commentary.

Boss, I could be a sheep-molesting baby-killer, and your argument would still be useless pap founded on an embarrassingly amateur fallacy that college freshman often learn about.

 

[Boss]

I’ve explained that before too. He said the moon had to be just right and the dinosaurs had to be wiped out....He said too many things had to happen for us to be here.

I explained this isn’t the only way intelligent life might come to be. It’s use the way it happened here.

He then may accept another planet has birds fish reptiles and mammals but nothing intelligent like us. I’ll admit we are probably a bit more rare than common wild life but certainly I don’t think we are unique. That would be an ignorant and arrogant conclusion

And again... You are stating a FAITH-BASED belief that you cannot support scientifically or biologically. I'm not saying it's not true, it could be... but it's FAITH-BASED! It's no different than saying God created all living things when He created the universe.

 

[Boss]

inorganic material!

"Organic material" does not mean "alive material". It means compounds which contain carbon.

When did you create a living organism from inorganic material?

....I'll wait!

That is not a fact that informs our ideas on life elsewhere, except to narrow where and how we search for life. Reason being, we might not recognize life not like our DNA life, even if we saw it. There is no reason whatsoever to demand or believe that life can only happen one way. You are insisting this is true, so your entire argument is built on a fallacy AND an authoritative declaration for which you have no evidence, theoretical or otherwise.

I'm not insisting ANYTHING is true OR false! What you are postulating is FAITH.... do you not understand that? You are quite literally rejecting known science and biology in favor of a faith-based hypothesis you cannot support. That's absolutely NO different than someone pontificating that God created everything.

Yes, you are insisting on the logically absurd idea that our tiny sample implies anything about the rest of the universe, as far as restrictions on what life can be or how and where it can form. No, I am not rejecting any known science; that is a shameless lie on your part, meant only to add bluster to your pitifully weak argument built entirely on Hoyles Fallacy.. In fact, what known science tells us is that we live in a deterministic, material universe where life can form. These are the only constraints our empirical knowledge puts on this discussion. You are adding other constraints that were born in the depths of your colon because they "kinda, sorta" feel right . This is unscientific and irrational.

Look Boss, you have been making the same error since square one: Hoyles Fallacy. I pointed this out to you. This is not valid logic. But you dont care. Instead of learning about this and correcting your fatal error (and it is fatal, as your entire argument is rendered completely worthless by it), you simply stomp your feet, repeat your error, then add personal commentary.

Boss, I could be a sheep-molesting baby-killer, and your argument would still be useless pap founded on an embarrassingly amateur fallacy that college freshman often learn about.

Look, dimwit... I have not "insisted" on anything other than facts. It's a FACT that life on our planet is the ONLY life we know of in the universe. I'm sorry, I really do wish we had all these amazing examples of living things elsewhere so you could make your arguments, but it's simply a FACT that we don't. You believe (HAVE FAITH) that it's possible life exists elsewhere... I haven't doubted that, you could be right. I've only said that it's a faith-based belief and you can't support it with science and biology.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’ve explained that before too. He said the moon had to be just right and the dinosaurs had to be wiped out....He said too many things had to happen for us to be here.

I explained this isn’t the only way intelligent life might come to be. It’s use the way it happened here.

He then may accept another planet has birds fish reptiles and mammals but nothing intelligent like us. I’ll admit we are probably a bit more rare than common wild life but certainly I don’t think we are unique. That would be an ignorant and arrogant conclusion

And again... You are stating a FAITH-BASED belief that you cannot support scientifically or biologically. I'm not saying it's not true, it could be... but it's FAITH-BASED! It's no different than saying God created all living things when He created the universe.

It's not faith to make evidence-based determinations and then proceed from them. It is not faith to proceed as if your car is going to start tomorrow morning. This is a shameless, absurd line of bullshit from you, and you ALWAYS retreat to this same, emvarrassing bullshit. I will describe it again:

Being that you have no tools available to you to elevate your magical thinking from the worthless muck where all magical thinking resides, you are left with only one tactic: drag down empirical knowledge and evidence-based ideas into the murk by calling them, "faith". Only in this way could you ever hope to place your magical bullshit on the same shelf as empirical knowledge or evidence-based thought.

It will fail, as it always does. Sure, you'll keep squawking, but your magical ideas will remain worthless, while empirical knowledge and evidence-based thought will retain their value.

 

[Boss]

It's not faith to make evidence-based determinations....

YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE OF LIFE ELSEWHERE!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here's another article on the artificial life and how it was created.

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'

First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer.

Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one.

Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code.

The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

Dr Venter compared his work with the building of a computer. Making the artificial DNA was the equivalent of creating the software for the operating system. Transferring it to a cell was like loading it into the hardware and running the programme.

"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Dr Venter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not faith to make evidence-based determinations....

YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE OF LIFE ELSEWHERE!

Irrelevant. I am not claiming with 100% certainty that there is life elsewhere. Please pay better attention to what is being discussed.

I am saying that we have evidence that life likely has or will form elsewhere at least one other time. This evidence comes in the form of the fact that life has formed at least once, the fact that the chemicals involved in the type of life we know about are abundant in the universe, the apparently short amount of time it took life to form on this planet, amd the sheer size of the universe.

 

[Boss]

Here's another article on the artificial life and how it was created.

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'

First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer.

Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one.

Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code.

The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

Dr Venter compared his work with the building of a computer. Making the artificial DNA was the equivalent of creating the software for the operating system. Transferring it to a cell was like loading it into the hardware and running the programme.

"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Dr Venter.

First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats...

I've highlighted a word you need to try and comprehend in that pea-sized brain of yours. Hope that helps.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here's another article on the artificial life and how it was created.

Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'

First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats, and stored the information on a computer.

Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one.

Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code.

The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate. The ability to reproduce or replicate is considered the basic definition of life.

Dr Venter compared his work with the building of a computer. Making the artificial DNA was the equivalent of creating the software for the operating system. Transferring it to a cell was like loading it into the hardware and running the programme.

"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Dr Venter.

First they sequenced the genetic code of Mycoplasma genitalium, the world's smallest bacteria that lives in cattle and goats...

I've highlighted a word you need to try and comprehend in that pea-sized brain of yours. Hope that helps.

Guess you missed the next two paragraphs.....................

Then they used the computer code to artificially reproduce the DNA in the laboratory, slightly modifying it with a "watermark" so it was distinguishable from the original natural one.

Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code.

There. I've highlighted the part that you missed. All original DNA was stripped, leaving no natural stuff.