LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteSo completely new and onobserved forms of life based on a totally different base material are more likely than intelligent creation to you?Originally Posted by Confed999
I'm just curious.
I was just talking about chemicals, not life
So completely new and onobserved forms of life based on a totally different base material are more likely than intelligent creation to you?
I'm just curious.
I dont know how well chemicals would stand up to orbital collisions between heavenly bodies or fiery re-entries either.
I suspect not very well. Of course the flip side of that is that some compounds(like glass) would be formed by the impact itself, so i guess...
Seems extremely unlikely to me that the 'natural' means of transplanting the stuff needed for life is a mach 30 fireball.
Actually it appears that the chances of it happening on Earth are 100%. Because it did. Closed system again and all that.You make it sound easy and inevitable, rather than an EXTREME mathematical implausibility(which it is).
Feel free to prove it via experimentation. Cause you'd be the first, and it would get you a nobel prize.
Life coming from goo?
Now THAT'S fantasy IMO....
-dale
Earth is not a closed system. Just ask anyone who's ever found a meteorite or gotten a sunburn. The ozone layer wouldn't matter at all if the earth was a truly closed system, and we wouldn't need a sun to provide IR radiation either.
To the best of our knowledge the UNIVERSE is a closed system, but our planet sure isn't, and niether is our solar system, and neither is our quadrant, and neither is our galaxy.
But getting back on topic, feel free to prove that life can be naturally created from scratch here by creating your own life from lifelessness in a bowl of goo.
Like i said, that'll getcha a Nobel.
Finally, you cannot prove that life was not introduced to this planet from an external source(intelligent or no). In fact, you(or anyone) are utterly incapable of definitively proving that. Probably ever.
Last edited by Bill; 12 Aug 06, at 23:00.
That's not really a test, Snipe, and you know it. Or you should.
Of course the BB theory is incomplete - most theories are, especially in cosmology. Hell's Bell's Snipe - we don't even know how galaxies really work yet.Unfortunately, Big Bang thoery under relativity collapses into infinite calculations as we approach the actual event(even einstien knew this decades ago).
It's one of the reason's we've kept looking for more answers/ideas/truths.
ANd then there's the matter of ole' cosmological constant(or some phantom particle) being needed to explain why the universe is what it is.
And of course there's the whole question as to WHY is the universe's expansion accelerating?
Big bang doesn't explain any of those things for us, which suggests it is an entirely incomplete theory, which it is.
That doesn't mean the whole idea is bunk. Does't mean it's NOT bunk, either. But it does mean that today the BB theory still accounts for most (if not all) of the observable cosmological characteristics of our universe.
That's a ridiculous statement, and again ignores your essential question of how did life originate. Even if it came from space to Earth, how did it originally start?There is simply no proof that it's a 'weak theory'. The laws of probabilities seem to favor it over all other possibilities IMO.
The latter, clearly. Occam's Razor demands it.What is most likely: That life science BELIEVES DOES EXIST elsewhere came here and planted the first lifeform(s) here, or that a puddle of goo spontaneously created life from random reactions in a fluid(as in constantly changing due to atmospheric conditions) sludge?
And the fact that they can try to do that indicates that it is a strongly scientific theory and process, and the fact that you can't begin to try to prove or disprove your ET seeding indicates that is is a fantasy.The fact that no one can replicate the process despite our advanced command of chemistry is pretty compelling evidence that there's a very real possibility that theory is completely bonkers.
Like I said above, seems to be a probabilty of 1.0 so far.The statistical improbabilities are overwhelming, even IF it can be done.
Snipe, let me explain something.So i guess man-engineered species of animals and plants are also fantasy?
There is direct, compelling, and irrefutable evidence that intelligent creation exists, because we can do it ourselves(just not entirely from scratch).
Further, if we DO manage to deliberately manipulate goo into life in a lab at some point(which we've been trying to do for decades), it will be ABSOLUTE PROOF that intelligent design is AT LEAST a co-owner of the law of the land wrt the formation of life from lifelessness.
And what about when we create the first machine with true AI and send it to another world to explore? If something happens to us, will it someday wonder if it suddenly sprung up from out of a pile of goo, or will it look favorably to the very real possibility that it was DELIBERATELY CREATED by an intelligent species that it cannot prove exists, and that it has never seen?
We're going to create sentient life in machines, it's merely a matter of time.
When we do(or when we create life from goo from scratch), i wonder what you'll say then....
I'll tell you what is fantasy. It's fantasy to think that it's a waste of time to seriously consider all possibilities, ESPECIALLY the ones we cannot disprove and that there is strong evidence already exists here.
Ie, intelligent design.
I believe that mankind will be able to travel faster than the speed of light. I believe it because a) it would suck if we couldn't, b) it would be cool if we could, and c) every other barrier science and math has erected for us has been pierced.
My belief is strong and unshaken by my fairly decent knowledge and education in the sciences.
But my belief is NOT SCIENTIFIC. It cannot be tested to my satisfaction and cannot be disproven. Your belief in ID is of the same caliber as my belief in FTL travel. Both COULD BE true, but the scientific method is useless in examining them.
-dale
Asking how life originated at it's true ground zero is like asking why the big bang went bang and didn't just stay the big singularity.
Who friggin knows.
A positivist would tell you it doesn't even matter.
My guess, for those of us who believe it does, the same extra-spatial/dimensional intelligence was behind both events(if indeed they were not in some way simulataneously executed).
Seems much more feasible than the 'little goo puddle that could', and M theory leaves open that possibility too. Even suggests it's feasible.(that's not to say probable, so don't freak...just possible).
Nope. That proves to me that intelligent creatures can through science master the art of creation and can travel in space and deliver payloads to precise distant locations and thereby 'seed' other systems.
Because the instant we can intentionally create life from goo we will have EXACTLY those capabilities.
Science predicts we can travel faster than light via wormhole just as it predicts that there are wormholes to begin with. No science fiction there.
Further, the moment we create life from scratch, we have become defacto intelligent creators with the ability to deliberately and methodically seed distant heavenly bodies with life.(even if on a tremendously long timeframe).
At that point denying intelligent creation will be like looking at yourself in the mirror and denying you see yourself.
Which would make you a really delusional dumbasss....
Last edited by Bill; 12 Aug 06, at 23:35.
If you can prove that there is a force at play within our four dimensions that removes the need for extra-dimensional 'gravity leak'(my term) you can prove that string or M theory is not needed to unify anything. If there is no need for extra-dimensions then there is no reason to expect them to exist(as we actually do expect them to exist now based on some of the predictions of string/m theory).
An obvious truth that i will not argue against.
Some of them. Unfortunately there are huge inconsistencies when you get into certain circumstances where prediction and observation do not match and all our laws and equations fall into oblivion.
So are you saying that because classical physics fails at very high speeds you would not use, say, Hooke's Law to determine the properties of a spring?
-dale
I didnt say high speeds, i said it fails in certain conditions. High speed is only one of them.
What i was referring to was the collapse of physics in or near a singularity(like the one that contained all matter that supposedly exploded and became the big bang). It is that failure that prevents a mathematical resolution of the big bang process. Hook's law obviously does not resolve the unanswered questions swirling around BB as it exists in our theories.
There are other problems with BB of course. Like why is the expansion of the universe supposedly still accelerating.
Physics doesnt predict this result from any modelable explosion(that i know of). Of course it doesn't help that we're still not sure how old the universe is either.
We know so little, yet even dweebs like us are able to intelligently design existing carbon based life....and i think it's a good bet that someday soon we'll create from scratch both carbon AND silicon based life.
Seems like the threshold for thses skills are pretty low. ET is probably WAY better at it than us...
Last edited by Bill; 13 Aug 06, at 00:28.
First, who says I don't believe an inteligence is behind the universe itself? I in fact do, I'm a Deist.
As to other forms of life, why would I think that was impossible? From what we actually know of this massively huge universe, why would I ever assume anything was impossible?
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
Just checking. I wasn't sure where you were weighing in here exactly.First, who says I don't believe an inteligence is behind the universe itself? I in fact do, I'm a Deist.
As to other forms of life, why would I think that was impossible? From what we actually know of this massively huge universe, why would I ever assume anything was impossible?
Hell..i'm not sure where I'M weighing in exactly, lololol.
It started in this thread with people who say evolution doesn't occur are in dreamland, because quite obviously evolution does happen. It was later a statement that things, no matter how improbable, become reality if there is enough time and space to keep rolling the dice. Basically I'm just acknowledging God's rules.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
If by evolution you mean survival of the fittest, you have me.It started in this thread with people who say evolution doesn't occur are in dreamland, because quite obviously evolution does happen. It was later a statement that things, no matter how improbable, become reality if there is enough time and space to keep rolling the dice. Basically I'm just acknowledging God's rules.
If by evolution you mean speciation, i'm not sold, though i will admit there is strong circumstantial evidence.
But if if you're telling me there was one single common ancestor from which every form of life ever evolved. Nope, aint buying it.
If by evolution you mean goo that spawned life crawling from the muck just cause it sat there long enough. Um, no.
Fairy tale.
Last edited by Bill; 13 Aug 06, at 00:53.
The first one. Once somebody observes the others I'll be 100% with those too.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: