Scientists use Moores law in linear regression to show life older than Earth

PostmodernProphet said:
lol....I quoted them specifically stating it....
Click to expand...

You did not, liar.

I said...

Nothing in the paper suggests that life did not evolve here.

You responded...

it specifically states it....
life began before the Earth was formed


Again, began and evolve are not the same thing. You need to quit repeatedly proving your intellectual dishonesty and just admit that you are in error.
 
To me, I've always assumed that life on Earth originated here (because of how complex the size of the universe makes the alternative). However, if the paper is correct, I would be curious to ask questions both about where it came from (the science) as well as why it was created off planet and/or system (the theology).
 
Threedee said:
To me, I've always assumed that life on Earth originated here (because of how complex the size of the universe makes the alternative). However, if the paper is correct, I would be curious to ask questions both about where it came from (the science) as well as why it was created off planet and/or system (the theology).
Click to expand...

My science programs theorize, asteroids, comets, bearing the building blocks of life and crashing into Earth with them.
 
The movement of space debris is limited by the distance it can travel within the vast universe. Unfortunately, so is all methods of space travel that we have at our disposal (and will possess for quite some time to come). It places the odds of Earth impact at overwhelming numbers, and just for life to have originated here the odds are already off the chart (yellow star, correct distance from the sun, presence of gas giants to block life-killing space debris, existance of a moon to control the tides, etc.).

That said, I'm not going to deny the science on faith, and my problems with it are all related to statistics and probability.
 
Threedee said:
The movement of space debris is limited by the distance it can travel within the vast universe. Unfortunately, so is all methods of space travel that we have at our disposal (and will possess for quite some time to come). It places the odds of Earth impact at overwhelming numbers, and just for life to have originated here the odds are already off the chart (yellow star, correct distance from the sun, presence of gas giants to block life-killing space debris, existance of a moon to control the tides, etc.).

That said, I'm not going to deny the science on faith, and my problems with it are all related to statistics and probability.
Click to expand...

We don't need all those things for life to have originated here. We need them for it to develop as widely and to the degree that it has. The paper talks about the possibility that bacteria may survive and reproduce in other planets and satellites within our solar system (e.g., Mars, Europa, Enceladus).
 
PostmodernProphet said:
really?....did space used to be something other than a vacuum?.....
Click to expand...

What are you on about? I am talking about conditions and opportunities here on earth. They have changed dramatically since the first forms of life appeared and have been changed by those forms of life. Read the paper that you claim destroys what I believe about evolution.

It's funny, you accepted the paper on face value without bothering to read it because you thought it created some problem for theories of evolution. It does not, it supports theories of evolution and is dependent on them.

There is far less proof for the assertions of this paper than for evolution and less is explained by it than is by evolution. Yet you adopted it and argued it was proven science.

It has provided a textbook example of your intellectually dishonest methods, confirmation bias and cherry picking. Your religion is the practice of lying.
 
Professor Baxter said:
What are you on about? I am talking about conditions and opportunities here on earth.
Click to expand...

perhaps it hasn't occurred to you yet that it doesn't really matter that conditions on earth are not optimum for SURVIVAL of the life teeming in the vacuum of space.....but certainly all the newly arrived meteorites that bombard us annually should be showing signs of the dead things that weren't able to survive as they did billions of years ago.......

if life didn't have time to evolve here on earth.......and there is no evidence of life traveling in the universe from one location to another.......what science do you rely upon........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
perhaps it hasn't occurred to you yet that it doesn't really matter that conditions on earth are not optimum for SURVIVAL of the life teeming in the vacuum of space.....but certainly all the newly arrived meteorites that bombard us annually should be showing signs of the dead things that weren't able to survive as they did billions of years ago.......

if life didn't have time to evolve here on earth.......and there is no evidence of life traveling in the universe from one location to another.......what science do you rely upon........
Click to expand...

That was not your point.

What do you expect to remain from dead bacteria? Would we have been able to identify it and the meteorite sites from a couple hundred years ago before whatever remains that had survived the space travel, burn through the atmosphere and impact were not absorbed by terrestrial bacteria? No. Can we now? Not without great doubt. But we have found meteorites that some believe show signs of fossilized bacteria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...from-Mars-found-inside-ancient-meteorite.html
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2087758,00.html

What science do I rely upon? You are the douchebag that leaped upon this as some sort of conclusive proof which destroyed my beliefs on evolution. I rely on the science that exists.

There is plenty of proof for evolution on earth, beyond kinds and any of the scientifically unsupported hurdles you have taken from your favorite creation myth.
 
Last edited:
Professor Baxter said:
That was not your point.
Click to expand...
odd....it certainly looks like my point.......yes, I remember it well.....it IS my point.....perhaps you didn't look at it in the daylight.....
What do you expect to remain from dead bacteria?
Click to expand...
how about zombie bacteria......or at the very least, a carcass or two.....

Would we have been able to identify it and the meteorite sites from a couple hundred years ago before whatever remains that had survived the space travel, burn through the atmosphere and impact were absorbed by terrestrial bacteria?
Click to expand...

why wait a couple hundred years?.....wouldn't it be smarter to look at those that fall more recently?.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
But we have found meteorites that some believe show signs of fossilized bacteria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...from-Mars-found-inside-ancient-meteorite.html
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2087758,00.html
Click to expand...

?....from your link......
The claims of life have been debunked every time, most recently just this past March. It always turns out to be a wishful interpretation of chemicals, minerals and tiny structures inside the meteorite that could be the fossilized husks of long-dead bacteria — but almost certainly aren't.
Click to expand...

is this you, relying on the science that exists?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
odd....it certainly looks like my point.......yes, I remember it well.....it IS my point.....perhaps you didn't look at it in the daylight.....

how about zombie bacteria......or at the very least, a carcass or two.....

why wait a couple hundred years?.....wouldn't it be smarter to look at those that fall more recently?.....
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
?....from your link......


is this you, relying on the science that exists?.....
Click to expand...

We are talking about bacteria. They don't leave much of a carcass behind and their remnants are almost immediately absorbed by other bacteria. If they don't fossilize the chance that we will find anything is very small. Even if we did find them we would have to somehow prove they were not terrestrial.

Absolutely, this is me relying on the science that exists. The articles demonstrate the fallacy of your claim that we should have been able to easily find the signs of dead bacteria in meteorites that have fallen for the last two hundred years. It's not an easy task and though some will argue these signs have been found the evidence is not conclusive or compelling for the reasons I explained.

As was explained by the paper you did not read, we are more likely to find conclusive proof on other planets/moons where they won't be contaminated by terrestrial life. You now seem to be absurdly demanding that I defend this paper that you previously argued was science proving and destroying my beliefs in evolution. I don't intend to defend it. I don't know that they are right and I don't believe they have sufficient proof. I am simply pointing out why your criticisms are stupid.
 
Professor Baxter said:
They don't leave much of a carcass behind and their remnants are almost immediately absorbed by other bacteria.
Click to expand...
well fine, then we can look at THOSE bacteria....

If they don't fossilize the chance that we will find anything is very small.
Click to expand...
I don't think things fossilize over a few weeks.....

Even if we did find them we would have to somehow prove they were not terrestrial.
Click to expand...
of course you would....because the terrestrial bacteria would all have evolved, wouldn't they?.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top