Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Life On Other Planets


Andy_T

Life  

67 members have voted

  1. 1. Life on other parts of the big ole' Cosmos?

    • Very, very likely.
      61
    • I'm open-minded, but not convinced one way or the other
      5
    • Unlikely
      1
    • Definitely not. It is completely unscriptural.
      0


Recommended Posts

Posted

Because it takes one to know one..

ID is not science.

Who's intelligent design is the blobfish?

Spontaneous generation of life is not science. It is not even a legitimate scientific theory. It is an a priori assumption based on pure supposition. What we do know is that science and technology allow humans to design very clever implements and that most biologists fully expect that we will be able to build synthetic life -- based on reverse engineering the components of self-replicating life, such as RNA, DNA, etc.

Your "scientific" position is that watches make themselves. No one designs them because for you that is not science. For you, every living thing is spontaneously generated and then evolves into higher forms. You confuse evolution with spontaneous generation of life. For you, the double helix was not designed by a sentient being, but came into existence via a self-replicating form of life which had been self-generated. However, by so believing you actually negate your own standing as a sentient being, and outlaw the existence of any other sentient beings in the universe. No one can design because you made an absolute, authoritarian statement that they cannot. Talk about megalomaniacal self-negation!!

Posted

Spontaneous generation of life is not science. It is not even a legitimate scientific theory.

That is why scientists are busily working out the details..

It is an a priori assumption based on pure supposition.

No, the assertion that it isn't possible would be an a priori assumption based on pure supposition.

What we do know is that science and technology allow humans to design very clever implements and that most biologists fully expect that we will be able to build synthetic life -- based on reverse engineering the components of self-replicating life, such as RNA, DNA, etc.

ok

Your "scientific" position is that watches make themselves. No one designs them because for you that is not science.

Watches have no power of reproduction. And I'm not the scientist?

[media=]

For you, every living thing is spontaneously generated and then evolves into higher forms.

It just needs one start.

You confuse evolution with spontaneous generation of life.

I don't believe I'm the one who's confused.

For you, the double helix was not designed by a sentient being, but came into existence via a self-replicating form of life which had been self-generated.

No more designed than a water molecule. It's just chemistry.

However, by so believing you actually negate your own standing as a sentient being, and outlaw the existence of any other sentient beings in the universe.

Why do you suppose this? If life can start here it can start elsewhere. If consciousness needs an immortal spirit, that has nothing to do with how a physical body comes into being.

No one can design because you made an absolute, authoritarian statement that they cannot.

Again science makes no assumptions. It simply follows the data. You cannot allow the possibility because you made an absolute, authoritarian statement that it isn't possible.

Talk about megalomaniacal self-negation!!

Yawn. Talk indeed..

Robert, you seem to be very certain of things for which the church takes no formal doctrinal stand. Our last prophet, G B Hinkley stated in general conference that God created the universe. That of course would be his opinion. Will you take issue with his orthodoxy because his view of God is somewhat supernatural? Doesn't sound like a being that would be concerned about running into black holes to me..

Posted

Doctrine aside, I think from an entirely logical perspective, the idea that there is no life anywhere except on this little planet is beyond absurd to me.

It's interesting because, doctrine aside, it's unlikely and verging on impossible that other life could be found in the universe. I read (and I'm frantically googling to find the source) that the chance of the conditions being met to harbour life (as they have done here) is 1 in 10^200. There are 10^80 (a 1 followed by 80 zeroes) in the universe.

For it to have happened by chance on this earth scientifically approaching impossible (certainly improbable). The odds that it would happen twice are considerably longer (I think??)

Posted (edited)

canard78:

Life is not only possible we are living proof of that. The natural elements needed to produce life are common throughout the universe. All that is needed is time and energy.

Edited by thesometimesaint
Posted

snapback.pngRobert F. Smith, on 13 October 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

Spontaneous generation of life is not science. It is not even a legitimate scientific theory.

That is why scientists are busily working out the details..[/qupte]

And failing at every turn.

Quote

It is an a priori assumption based on pure supposition.

No, the assertion that it isn't possible would be an a priori assumption based on pure supposition.

A scientist would accurately quote, something which you do not do here. To say that science has always failed to demonstrate spontaneous generation of life is not to say that it is impossible (although it may be impossible). Only that all attempts have met with failure.

Quote

What we do know is that science and technology allow humans to design very clever implements and that most biologists fully expect that we will be able to build synthetic life -- based on reverse engineering the components of self-replicating life, such as RNA, DNA, etc.

ok

Quote

Your "scientific" position is that watches make themselves. No one designs them because for you that is not science.

Watches have no power of reproduction. And I'm not the scientist?

Since you deny ID, which means that sentient beings cannot design and make things, you have engaged in an illogical and self-replicating denial of reality. That is not science.

Quote

For you, every living thing is spontaneously generated and then evolves into higher forms.

It just needs one start.

Which we have never seen.

Quote

You confuse evolution with spontaneous generation of life.

I don't believe I'm the one who's confused.

So you are claiming that evolution and spontaneous generation of life are the same thing? I know of no scientist who has ever made such a ridiculous claim.

Quote

For you, the double helix was not designed by a sentient being, but came into existence via a self-replicating form of life which had been self-generated.

No more designed than a water molecule. It's just chemistry.

If "it's just chemistry," then why haven't chemists or biochemists been able to demonstrate the spontaneous generation of the double-helix? Or any form of life for that matter?

Quote

However, by so believing you actually negate your own standing as a sentient being, and outlaw the existence of any other sentient beings in the universe.

Why do you suppose this? If life can start here it can start elsewhere. If consciousness needs an immortal spirit, that has nothing to do with how a physical body comes into being.

You are assuming what has to be proved. Very unscientific. You assume that life started here by spontaneous generation and that it could start elsewhere as well, and many scientists assume that as well -- one of the reasons why astrophysicists are certain that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Of course, merely going by the presence of life here (regardless of how it arose) does suggest life elsewhere. It does not tell us how it came into existence. You are again assuming what has to be proved, in contravention of scientific principles.

Quote

No one can design because you made an absolute, authoritarian statement that they cannot.

Again science makes no assumptions. It simply follows the data. You cannot allow the possibility because you made an absolute, authoritarian statement that it isn't possible.

So you are withdrawing your denial of ID? You are now admitting the obvious: That sentient beings actually do design and make things. That would be good science.

Quote

Talk about megalomaniacal self-negation!!

Yawn. Talk indeed..

I am glad that you are at least owning up to some degree of reality, at long last.

Robert, you seem to be very certain of things for which the church takes no formal doctrinal stand. Our last prophet, G B Hinkley stated in general conference that God created the universe. That of course would be his opinion. Will you take issue with his orthodoxy because his view of God is somewhat supernatural? Doesn't sound like a being that would be concerned about running into black holes to me..

You are making a logical category mistake here. You are discussing religion. I'm discussing science. Why are you afraid to discuss science? You claim to be a scientist, but there is little which is scientific in your assertions.

Posted

canard78:

Life is not only possible we are living proof of that. The natural elements needed to produce life are common throughout the universe. All that is needed is time and energy.

Which has, of course, never been scientifically demonstrated.

Posted

...

The common ID position is against evolution as well as abiogenisis. Your position (if it is your position) is that you are comfortable with evolution but must insist upon an intelligent designer for the first self replicating cell? And you are upset to discover that this idea is not scientifically respectable? Really?

So which is it then? 1.Infinite regression(transplanted lifeforms), 2.design/engineered bodies, or 3.evolution from a first self replicating designed/engineered life form?

The facts are:

http://www.daniellab...y/timeline1.htm

What's your explanation?

1.Infinite regression, other than being a logical absurdity, doesn't fit the fact that all lifeforms display common ancestry.

2.Designed/engineered bodies doesn't fit the fact that all lifeforms display common ancestry.

3.If we as intelligences are smart enough to do this we are smart enough to make the finished lifeforms as well and there is no need for the billions of years waiting process that took place.

Posted

Shalamabobbi:

3.If we as intelligences are smart enough to do this we are smart enough to make the finished lifeforms as well and there is no need for the billions of years waiting process that took place.

When you have all of eternity what's a few billion years to God and his friends?

Posted

The common ID position is against evolution as well as abiogenisis. Your position (if it is your position) is that you are comfortable with evolution but must insist upon an intelligent designer for the first self replicating cell? And you are upset to discover that this idea is not scientifically respectable? Really?

Intelligent Design has no logical connection with evolution or abiogenesis, even though proponents of ID can take several possible positions on both, and frequently do.

A proponent of ID is being very practical in observing that sentient beings can build or design many clever items, both organic and inorganic in nature. Humans do it all the time, and the direction of modern technology is toward designing ever more complex and amazing items. DNA and the double helix structure it exhibits are surely beyond our technological capability now, but how far into the future must we go before we humans are able to create such a design in the real world? The implication is, of course, that at such a point the design and building of self-replicating life would be well within our grasp.

In our vast universe (or multiverse) there are certainly sentient beings far ahead of us in technology who have already achieved just such a goal, among others.

So which is it then? 1.Infinite regression(transplanted lifeforms), 2.design/engineered bodies, or 3.evolution from a first self replicating designed/engineered life form?

Your #3 is not clear to me: Are you suggesting that a self-replicating life-form designed by a sentient being then begins to evolve (as part of its design)?

As for #2, are you positing design of biological simulacra (bodies) in the lab with no developmental intermediaries?

Whatever the case, any one of the three would be theoretically conceivable, although #2 seems to be the most difficult and the least likely way advanced sentient beings would approach the problem (keep parsimony in mind).

My own personal preference would be transplanting of life from one system to another. Self-replication of an already extant life-form is much easier and more parsimonious than the unnecessary design and building of life from scratch. One could also do genetic engineering on already extant life (which scientists already do). This does bracket the question of the absolute origin of life, and does lead to an infinite regress. However, I don't find that to be at all problematic.

Beautiful rainbow display.

Reminds me of my youth downstairs at the Griffith Observatory.

What's your explanation?

1.Infinite regression, other than being a logical absurdity, doesn't fit the fact that all lifeforms display common ancestry.

2.Designed/engineered bodies doesn't fit the fact that all lifeforms display common ancestry.

3.If we as intelligences are smart enough to do this we are smart enough to make the finished lifeforms as well and there is no need for the billions of years waiting process that took place.

That the life-forms on planet Earth show common ancestry (same DNA blueprint approach) seems to be just the sort of parsimonious intelligent Design mode one would expect from a truly sentient being. This applies as much to transmission from another system as it does to unique design here on this planet, with other design modes invented by sentient beings elsewhere. We might imagine an infinite variety of approaches and designs in such case.

As for infinity or infinite regress being a "logical absurdity," perhaps you'd care to demonstrate that claim via logic or math. I see no illogic or absurdity in that, nor in the notion of planting a seed and allowing it to grow in one's absence. To be in awe of billions of years is to inject an unnecessary emotional element into the equation. One is only limited by the level of one's sentience.

Posted

Intelligent Design has no logical connection with evolution or abiogenesis, even though proponents of ID can take several possible positions on both, and frequently do.

A proponent of ID is being very practical in observing that sentient beings can build or design many clever items, both organic and inorganic in nature. Humans do it all the time, and the direction of modern technology is toward designing ever more complex and amazing items. DNA and the double helix structure it exhibits are surely beyond our technological capability now, but how far into the future must we go before we humans are able to create such a design in the real world? The implication is, of course, that at such a point the design and building of self-replicating life would be well within our grasp.

In our vast universe (or multiverse) there are certainly sentient beings far ahead of us in technology who have already achieved just such a goal, among others.

The problem with this logic is if beings already exist why the need to design them? They already exist.

Your #3 is not clear to me: Are you suggesting that a self-replicating life-form designed by a sentient being then begins to evolve (as part of its design)?

It's an attempt to understand your viewpoint. The evolutionary history is before us and you seem to be comfortable with it and proposing ID as the orign for life so I'm thinking that you view the first self-replicating lifeform as designed and planted and evolution following on that, via random mutation and natural selection as proposed by science.

As for #2, are you positing design of biological simulacra (bodies) in the lab with no developmental intermediaries?

Again I'm trying to pin down what you are proposing. These are the possibilities that I can think of if someone doesn't adhere to a scientific explanation of the facts.

My own personal preference would be transplanting of life from one system to another. Self-replication of an already extant life-form is much easier and more parsimonious than the unnecessary design and building of life from scratch. One could also do genetic engineering on already extant life (which scientists already do). This does bracket the question of the absolute origin of life, and does lead to an infinite regress. However, I don't find that to be at all problematic.

Here I guess I would need to understand whether you propose that life existed before our universe and was seeded after the formation of galaxies from without the observed universe. If you are proposing a universe that extends indefinitely into the past, please explain to me how matter gets recycled. (I am referring here to the fact that once we get to nickel and iron there is no way to get back to hydrogen and helium without an equal input of energy that we got out of the fusion process initially. Also most of the energy made available from fusion gets wasted and can't be recaptured.)

That the life-forms on planet Earth show common ancestry (same DNA blueprint approach) seems to be just the sort of parsimonious intelligent Design mode one would expect from a truly sentient being. This applies as much to transmission from another system as it does to unique design here on this planet, with other design modes invented by sentient beings elsewhere. We might imagine an infinite variety of approaches and designs in such case.

That ignores the fact that other things (besides same DNA blueprint) are also observed that demonstrate common ancestry and they are not few in number and they independently agree with each other. These would not be explained by "parsimonious intelligent design", ERVs being the most prominant from among them.

As for infinity or infinite regress being a "logical absurdity," perhaps you'd care to demonstrate that claim via logic or math.

Again it goes to the question of the nature of the universe. Is it infinite in time or not. If not, and the evidence is on that side, then you have to explain where the original lifeforms were hanging out prior to the existence of the universe. If it is a matter of mere transplantation as you favor then why the billions of years of waiting, which coincidentally happen to allow for the gradual mutation and selection process of evolution?

Posted

The problem with this logic is if beings already exist why the need to design them? They already exist.

Your question is circular and ignores the fact that humans are indeed designing all manner of items, including the attempt to create synthetic life. Of course life already exists in the here and now. So why to you imagine that scientists are trying to create it in the lab?

It's an attempt to understand your viewpoint. The evolutionary history is before us and you seem to be comfortable with it and proposing ID as the orign for life so I'm thinking that you view the first self-replicating lifeform as designed and planted and evolution following on that, via random mutation and natural selection as proposed by science.

I asked you a reasonable question, and you refuse to answer ("Your #3 is not clear to me: Are you suggesting that a self-replicating life-form designed by a sentient being then begins to evolve (as part of its design)?"). I did not ask you whether you thought I am comfortable with standard evolutionary history, nor whether you think I accept the notion of ID with an embedded evolutionary plan. A simple "yes" would suffice here.

Again I'm trying to pin down what you are proposing. These are the possibilities that I can think of if someone doesn't adhere to a scientific explanation of the facts.

I asked you a simple question and you again refused to answer me. ("As for #2, are you positing design of biological simulacra (bodies) in the lab with no developmental intermediaries?"). A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice, although you could certainly go on to explain what you had in mind.

Here I guess I would need to understand whether you propose that life existed before our universe and was seeded after the formation of galaxies from without the observed universe. If you are proposing a universe that extends indefinitely into the past, please explain to me how matter gets recycled. (I am referring here to the fact that once we get to nickel and iron there is no way to get back to hydrogen and helium without an equal input of energy that we got out of the fusion process initially. Also most of the energy made available from fusion gets wasted and can't be recaptured.)

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The same applies to energy.

However, that applies only to the matter & energy we know about, and the conversion process of one to another form (e = mc2). Nothing is ever really lost or wasted. At the same time, most of the matter & energy in our observable universe is unknown to us. We cannot examine it or understand its true nature. We can only surmise or extrapolate its existence from known phenomena:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/05/scientists-finally-measure-cosmic-dark-matter/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121024133402.htm

Based on the best modern science, our observable universe extends back only to a "Big Bang" or some sort of singularity of infinite density and zero volume (but no one actually knows what it must have been, because it cannot be observed or tested). Most scientists consider it absurd to suppose that nothing existed before that, nor that only this universe exists. Most scientists accept that somehow other universes, a multiverse, or other dimensions exist, and are formulating a good many approaches to explaining what that might mean -- none of it provable -- such as string theory.

That ignores the fact that other things (besides same DNA blueprint) are also observed that demonstrate common ancestry and they are not few in number and they independently agree with each other. These would not be explained by "parsimonious intelligent design", ERVs being the most prominant from among them.

Let the scientists explain the details of how the entire system works, endogenous retroviruses included. My statement remains entirely correct: "That the life-forms on planet Earth show common ancestry (same DNA blueprint approach) seems to be just the sort of parsimonious intelligent Design mode one would expect from a truly sentient being. This applies as much to transmission from another system as it does to unique design here on this planet, with other design modes invented by sentient beings elsewhere. We might imagine an infinite variety of approaches and designs in such case."

Again it goes to the question of the nature of the universe. Is it infinite in time or not. If not, and the evidence is on that side, then you have to explain where the original lifeforms were hanging out prior to the existence of the universe. If it is a matter of mere transplantation as you favor then why the billions of years of waiting, which coincidentally happen to allow for the gradual mutation and selection process of evolution?

So you are not able to demonstrate that infinity or infinite regress is a logical absurdity. I thought as much.

This failure by you is accompanied by your insistence on "the universe" instead of a multiverse, and by your discomfort with "billions of years of waiting." Neither of these fears is justified by science, even though they are very understandable human concerns. I have no problem with billions of years, nor should you.

Posted (edited)

Because it takes one to know one..

ID is not science.

blobfish.png Who's intelligent design is the blobfish?

Ha! Not only the blobfish... but numerous other sea creatures that are really odd that live at great depths of the sea... Some have no eyes because they are far from the surface and no light is available or needed. I always wonder about the purpose of their creation... or if such odd creatures are just part of happenstance between cells, etc., at the bottom of the ocean that morph into various forms.

GG

Edited by Garden Girl
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...