The big question about life on other planets: 1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s lik which flaw in his argument do I start with first.

But that's the point. He pinches of a specious, steaming turd full of lies and misrepresentations and half truths, and either you have to do all the work of sifting through his pile and debunking it point by point, or he "wins".

In his eyes, of course. In the real world his paper is getting the attention it deserves: none.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Until we know where life came from, alien lifeform is beyond the realms of science.

We.dont have to know where life "came from" (spoiler alert: it was abiogenesis) to find it elsewhere.

 

[Colin norris]

Science is gambling, it's relying on odds there's life out there. Until we know where life came from, alien lifeform is beyond the realms of science.

We know where life came from and it's a fact through DNA. The problem is godbotherers won't accept it because it goes against their filthy lying bible.

 

[Captain Caveman]

We know where life came from and it's a fact through DNA. The problem is godbotherers won't accept it because it goes against their filthy lying bible.

So where did DNA come from? I don't follow the Bible either.

 

[Colin norris]

So where did DNA come from? I don't follow the Bible either.

DNA came with the first life. Do some bloody research

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So where did DNA come from? I don't follow the Bible either.

Where do any chemicals "come from"?

 

[Ringtone]

Science is gambling, it's relying on odds there's life out there. Until we know where life came from, alien lifeform is beyond the realms of science.

Science is not gambling on anything in the sense that you mean.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Where do any chemicals "come from"?

Precisely, where did chemicals, minerals, DNA, energy and matter come from. Science doesn't know, the Bible makes a claim. That's where we are at.

I was told there's a billion galaxies, each with a billion planets orbiting billions of stars. So it's purely an odds game if life is out there. But what's life? Apparently a foetus to a certain age is not life, so I don't know what scientists are looking for. And until we can develop something to get us across space in a meaningful timeframe, it's all irrelevant.

 

[Ringtone]

You started out by saying

That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins

You lost me right away. You’re not good communicator.

You need to carefully regard the pertinent studies altogether at once, hence, the links and footnotes. Full context:

But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would not have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres (Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth; Study suggests early Earth’s atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide).​

​

Perplexing.​

​

That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the atmospheric problem. 3 In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evinces an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth.​

​

Perplexing.​

​

It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities. But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today. The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits. It doesn’t.​

​

. . .​

​

3 Tony Fitzpatrick (Sep. 8, 2005). “Calculations favor reducing atmosphere for early Earth: Was Miller-Urey experiment correct?”. Washington University in St. Louis: Newsroom.​

 

[Ringtone]

We know where life came from and it's a fact through DNA. The problem is godbotherers won't accept it because it goes against their filthy lying bible.

What?!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Precisely, where did chemicals, minerals, DNA, energy and matter come from.

So what you are really asking is, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Do you think anyone has the answer? I don't.
Anyone who says they know the answer is lying or delusional.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Apparently a foetus to a certain age is not life,

Please keep this trolling horseshit out of the science section. Thanks.

 

[ding]

Precisely, where did chemicals, minerals, DNA, energy and matter come from.

Predestined by the laws of nature which are finely tuned to create a universe where beings that know and create will arise.

 

[ding]

Apparently a foetus to a certain age is not life

Some are selective in their acceptance of science.

 

[Colin norris]

What?!

Why would you ask me to repeat my statement when it is written in front of you?

If you believe it to be wrong, give me your definitive evidence of shut your ignorant mouth.

 

[Ringtone]

Why would you ask me to repeat my statement when it is written in front of you?

If you believe it to be wrong, give me your definitive evidence of shut your ignorant mouth.

All I said was what?! relative to your assertion that "[w]e know where life came from and it's a fact through DNA."

Your statement hardly alludes to anything definitively manifest, and your rudeness is "straight out of Compton" bizarre.

Again, what you be talkin' about, Willis?

 

[Mushroom]

The problem is godbotherers won't accept it because it goes against their filthy lying bible.

And once again, as I often say is that one should not lump in the fanatical fundamentalists with the rest.

I myself am religious, but am not a fundamentalist and have no problem with my faith contradicting science. As over 65% of Americans consider themselves "Religious", that is not a problem for the vast majority. The radical fundamentalists are a small minority, that even we have no problem openly mocking. You will not find many "Christians" for example stating their support of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Mushroom]

Precisely, where did chemicals, minerals, DNA, energy and matter come from. Science doesn't know

Sure it does, stars.

You are welcome.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are not to be taken seriously.

And there we are.

You are unable to even attempt to articulate a coherent theory. And you think we should take you seriously. Why should any of us if you refuse even to even get to the most basic of starting points?

 

[FA_Q2]

So what you are really asking is, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

Do you think anyone has the answer? I don't.
Anyone who says they know the answer is lying or delusional.

While we do not have the answer, Brian Greene has a lot of good content on the subject.

One of his takes is that we may be asking the wrong question, nothing may actually be impossible. The question would then be reversed, why is nothing not possible rather than why is there something. Something is the default.