Posted on 01/26/2015 1:29:43 PM PST by Heartlander
Doesn’t have much evidence on which to base the conclusion that earth is the only place in the universe where life exists. lt is creation theology that makes me reject most religions.
The wag I see it, hydrogen is hydrogen everywhere in the universe. Oxygen is oxygen everywhere in the universe. Carbon is carbon everywhere in the universe. Hydrogen, oxygen and carbon will interact in the same way everywhere in the universe.
By extension, if you can have water, carbon dioxide, or methane it isn’t much of a stretch to get to DNA.
“Doesn’t have much evidence on which to base the conclusion that earth is the only place in the universe where life exists.”
Rather odd logic.
I agree no conclusion can be made, either way.
But the fact Is there is 100% evidence for life here and so far zero for life anywhere else.
It would seem from a logical or scientific perspective, the onus of proof is on those who would claim there is life elsewhere, not on disproving a purely speculative claim of life elsewhere.
This is my problem with atheistic creation ‘theology’. We know DNA has the following:
1. Functional InformationHow could such a system form randomly without any intelligence, and totally unguided?
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
What would come first - the encoder, error correction, or the decoder? How and where did the functional information originate?
Furthermore, DNA contains multi-layered information that reads both forward and backwards - DNA stores data more efficiently than anything we've created - and a majority of DNA contains metainformation (information about how to use the information in the context of the related data). The design inference is obvious.
Bwahahahaha?
You give yourself away with the cry of the socially immature Darwin Central virginal atheist nerd cult.
Why do you feel the need to spam the thread with your giant image? I guess it is in obeisance to your Spaghetti God.
“But the fact Is there is 100% evidence for life here and so far zero for life anywhere else.” Such an assertion belies your narrow narrow narrow class for proof. There are memos between top military folks in the fifties which contradict your assertion.
I am not addressing flying saucer stuff.
I don’t think this topic includes it either.
No scientist who argues for other inhabitable worlds uses UFO stories as evidence.
That’s really a different topic.
Doesn’t have much evidence on which to base the conclusion that earth is the only place in the universe where life exists.
If you would like to see evidence, watch "The Privileged Planet", then get back to us.
The difficulty is how we define 'life arisen'. God created the entire shebang, including all the coordinate systems. We really don't know what is in the coordinate systems not accessible to our 'science' at the limits of our current Physics.
““Doesn’t have much evidence on which to base the conclusion that earth is the only place in the universe where life exists.””
“Rather odd logic.”
No, it is not “odd logic” at all, because it correctly observes that rejecting a speculative conjecture without a basis in experimental observation constitutes a false conclusion. Your argument constitutes a logical fallacy.
“I agree no conclusion can be made, either way.”
That comment serves as a strawman argument by switching the subject away from the discussion of a speculative conjecture about a probability to a the entirely different subject or whether or not a non-speculative theory is currently proven. The discussion of the probability for a speculative conjecture can produce a speculative conclusion without an attempt to reach a non-speculative conclusion about the results of a future non-speculative theory.
“But the fact Is there is 100% evidence for life here and so far zero for life anywhere else.”
Fifty years ago I predicted the probability of exoplanets being found some day was likely to be 100 percent. I had university professors who denied the possibility while arguing to the contrary the Solar System was likely to be unique in having multiple planets. They cited the large percentage of solar systems having multiple stars that would they presumed to disrupt the formation of planets. As I argued fifty years ago, our development of technologies capable of sensing exoplanets gave us the ability to detect them. Likewise, the development of new technologies and sufficient time in which to use them will be necessary to detect any alien civilizations. It should also be noted any alien civilizations we detect may be extinct by the time the evidence of their existence has sufficient time to arrive here on the Earth.
“It would seem from a logical or scientific perspective, the onus of proof is on those who would claim there is life elsewhere, not on disproving a purely speculative claim of life elsewhere.”
On the contrary, it is quite illogical for you to propose it is necessary to provide experimental evidence sufficient to sustain a hypothesis and its subsequent theory of the existence of life elsewhere in the Universe in order to reach a conditional speculative conclusion about a speculative probability of there being life or no life elsewhere in the Universe.
Given the propensity for the building blocks of life to self-organize due to their inherent chemistries, it appears to be virtually impossible for life to have failed to develop countless times in the Milky Way Galaxy and the vast ocean of galaxies elsewhere in the Universe.
Given the positive evidence from the current state of this research, and the negative evidence from the search for extraterrestrial life, the most satisfying answer to Fermi’s paradox is that we are alone, and that there is a supernatural reason we are here.
...
Why does it have to be supernatural? It could be God using natural methods that we don’t yet understand.
“Fifty years ago I predicted the probability of exoplanets being found some day was likely to be 100 percent. I had university professors who denied the possibility while arguing to the contrary the Solar System was likely to be unique in having multiple planets.”
I think you are clearly a visionary genius.
“...it appears to be virtually impossible for life to have failed to develop countless times in the Milky Way Galaxy and the vast ocean of galaxies elsewhere in the Universe.”
Yes, definitely. We must all dogmatically accept multiple life elsewhere unless it can be disproven.
Given the propensity for the building blocks of life to self-organize due to their inherent chemistries, it appears to be virtually impossible for life to have failed to develop countless times in the Milky Way Galaxy and the vast ocean of galaxies elsewhere in the Universe.
...
Life appears to be very rare in our own Solar System, and even rare on Earth if you use an objective measurement like a ratio of biomass to mass.
I think your interest and comments are a bit too occultic for me.
When I was a kid I was interested in UFO’s for a while and read a number of books about it.
I do know who Kenneth Arnold was, and Keyhoe and Adamski and Howard Menger and Gray Barker and John Keel and Albert Bender and Betty and Barney Hill, Project Bluebook, etc...
Do you have a writer on this who you think is good?
Due to the increase in the Sun’s energy output, and the carbonate-silicate cycle that removes CO2 from the atmosphere to compensate, the level of CO2 is already very low for plants, and the amount and diversity of plant life is dropping due to the decline.11 In a few hundred million years, the Earth will not be able to sustain complex plants or, it is likely, humans either.
...
Does Algore know this?
Talisker,
I think your image of the stars was beautiful and appropriate for the discussion and for the point you are making that the vastness of the universe suggests life has arisen on other planets as well as Earth.
But it was too big, both in dimension and in bandwidth needed to load it.
The size was deliberate.
It was my point.
The evidence of something very advanced (wingless airfoils, not rockets) in the skies all over the Earth is no longer in dispute. And based upon the dates of the earliest sightings of very advanced technology, I find it amazing that anyone could doubt that non-terrestrial visitation is a reality.
Goron doesn’t know much of anything. He is darn near uneducated. But he has good handlers and he is an excellent puppet for the oligarchs to waggle before the dumbed down masses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.