The Origin of Life

Dixie said:
I can see you moron idiots sitting in your underwear in grandmother's basement, picking your noses, and reading my posts.... foaming at the mouth... looking for just one little thing I post that you can jump on and "Prove Dixie Wrong!" as if that puts some pinhead feather in your cap or something! Please stop bogging my thread down with minutia, and deal with the subject at hand. I really grow tired of thwacking you upside your stupid pinheads with your own idiocy... it's boring to me... really!

The statement stands, just as one can't be divided by three without a remainder... Earthlings have not discovered living organisms on another celestial body. FACT!
Click to expand...

And the fact is, Dixie, that we have only examined a very small portion of Mars. And thats it. None of the other planets have been examined in any detail at all.

So when you say "we have thoroughly examined most every planet we can examine", and the fact is that we have not thoroughly examined any planet but our own, I think your lie is rather obvious.

We have done some surface exploration of Mars, but not nearly enough to even begin to call it thorough.

We have about 2 hours of transmitted data from various probes that landed on Venus. (if that is your definition of "thorough" this conversation is a waste of time)

Mercury has only had three flyby explorations and we have only mapped 45% of it surface. Is that what you call thorough?

And these are the planets that are closest to us. The rest have had even less exploration.




Now, knowing your debating abilities as I do, I can see where you hedged your bet. "we have thoroughly examined most every planet we can examine, which would have any chance of supporting life as we know it, within our solar system".

If I said "I stayed invisible for as long as I could". The implication would be that I was claiming to be able to become invisible. But, in fact, I made no such concrete claim.

But the points you blew were:

1- We have not thoroughly examined any planet but earth.

2- "life as we know it" is a cop-out, because life may well exist in ways we do not yet understand. After all, there are small life forms that use arsenic to generate energy and to grow. There are bacteria that survive on sulfur instead of oxygen. There are colonies of animals, including crabs & tube worms, living in +500 degree sea water with chemicals to toxic it would kill most life forms. There are also debates concerning whether other life would necessarily be carbon based. Silicon would be another obvious choice, since it would be very stable in sulfur/acid rich setting, which have been recorded on other planets. An ammonia or ammonia-water mixture, stays liquid at much colder temperatures than plain water. Such biochemistries may exist outside the conventional water-based "habitability zone".

3- The "within our solar system" is a limitation that helps your argument but is a limitation that most refuse to accept. No, we have not explored outside our solar system. But our solar system is a tiny part of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is only one galaxy. The idea that in all the vastness of the universe, there only life on this one tiny spot is about as arrogant as it gets.
 
Last edited:
Read the thread title.... we are supposed to be discussing the origin of life. Instead, you've chosen to take the conversation off into a silly-ass debate over whether or not life exists on other planets IN OUR OWN SOLAR SYSTEM! This is how absolutely devoid of argument you are, when it comes to the origin of life. You really don't have much to hang your hat on there, so you dance around playing semantics games and insulting me, nit-picking things I have stated, and doing anything you can do to avoid talking about what is responsible for the origination of life.

At least Grind did make some attempt to explain what he thought to be how life originated. Of course, it was totally without scientific basis and devoid of logic, but at least he tried. You pinheads won't even try! You'll just continue to lob insults at me, poke fun at God, scoff at the possibility of intelligent design, and run around in circles with some off-topic argument you've created from something I didn't say.

Life exists on this planet because something intelligent created it and put it here. Otherwise it would not exist here, just like it doesn't exist on the other planets of our solar system, which have the same access to the same life-coalescing resources in the universe. To me, that makes a helluva lot more sense than what you loony tunes are trying to peddle. So far, no one has dared to try and explain how simple cells became more complex and "evolved" their way to human beings! Science doesn't support that notion, and even the rudimentary theories you have about evolutionary process, doesn't support it. It's absurd to even attempt to rationalize it, which is why you are all relegated to running around acting like monkeys, trying to distract from the topic.
 
On the one hand we have the theory that life came about by the abiogenesis. And on the other hand we have the theory that life was designed by some outside intelligence.

Neither side has proof. Abiogenesis is the best idea that scientists have come up with. And ID is the best idea that the religious people have come up with.


Neither side, as I said, has any proof. Neither side is likely to have any proof.

Dixie, you asked what people believed. You have argued numerous times with people who say they think abiogenesis is the correct theory.

If you want to limit the thread to only the origins of life, thats peachy. But the rest of us have plenty to say on more than that slim marginal topic.


The lack of proof of abiogenesis is not evidence for ID. No matter how many times you think you poke holes in the scientific theories, you still have not added anything towards the validity of ID.




But please do tell us more about this "thorough" exploration of other planets.

If you could just name one planet, besides earth, that we have thoroughly explored for life.....
 
Solitary said:
On the one hand we have the theory that life came about by the abiogenesis. And on the other hand we have the theory that life was designed by some outside intelligence.

Neither side has proof. Abiogenesis is the best idea that scientists have come up with. And ID is the best idea that the religious people have come up with.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Many scientists also believe it is possible life originated through some source of intelligent input. Most self-respecting scientists would tell you they can't "conclude" otherwise, because science forbids drawing definitive conclusions. I am not a "religious" person, and I believe it is impossible for the diverse complexity of life to have emerged as the result of random events. I don't necessarily think that means I believe God created it, but some form of intelligence must have played a role, it's only logical. It is quite illogical to conclude random chance resulted in the creation of the wondrous world full of life we witness here. If there were a single form of life, or if we saw evidence of life emerging from non-organics all around us, and we could confirm that 'evolution' crossed lines of species, then maybe I could see a case for that, but this is not what we see at all. We have a delicately balanced ecosystem, with an abundance of unique life forms, which interrelate to each other in harmonious balance. It's an operational system of life, which nothing scientific has ever been able to explain, and frankly, never will be able to.

Neither side, as I said, has any proof. Neither side is likely to have any proof.
Click to expand...

Well, I just gave you the "proof" ...I can't make you accept it. The world of life we have is too diverse and complex to be the result of chance and circumstance. It defies the very principles of logic science holds dear.

Dixie, you asked what people believed. You have argued numerous times with people who say they think abiogenesis is the correct theory.
Click to expand...

I've not argued against Abiogenesis at all. In fact, one of the many variations of abiogenic theory is remarkably similar to Biblical references of God's creation of life. The Clay Theory postulates that chemical reactions of silica organisms found in clay, reacted with heat and pressure to form amino acids and produce the first living organisms... The Bible puts it in much simpler terms; God spat into the dust... So maybe the Bible and Science are both correct?

If you want to limit the thread to only the origins of life, thats peachy. But the rest of us have plenty to say on more than that slim marginal topic.
Click to expand...

Well that's peachy too! Start your own thread! I specifically want to discuss origin of life, and avoid minutia debates over semantics, silly distractions of unrelated nature, and irrelevant discussion of the process of evolution theory, which only applies to specific species changing over time.

The lack of proof of abiogenesis is not evidence for ID. No matter how many times you think you poke holes in the scientific theories, you still have not added anything towards the validity of ID.
Click to expand...

Well, this shows how little you want to read my comments with an open mind, and instead, seek to assign your own meanings to what I've said. As I stated in the opening, nothing here is definitive, we are not attempting to "prove" an answer, but to ponder a question. I admit I don't know the answer, I am not claiming I do. I have a completely open mind, and I have encouraged all of you to post your opinion here, explain it to me! Let me see your evidence, if you have any, and if you don't, well that's fine too.


But please do tell us more about this "thorough" exploration of other planets.

If you could just name one planet, besides earth, that we have thoroughly explored for life.....
Click to expand...

Well, it's unrelated minutia. Not only that, but it's just plain silly. NASA has launched a number of probes to Mars, Venus, Jupiter, etc. We have studied these planets for years, and we have yet to discover life on any of them. It would likely be the biggest news story of the century if we did. So, to sit here and argue with me, that I am wrong when I state the simple fact that no life has yet been discovered, is just a distraction from the topic. Either present some damn evidence of life elsewhere, or drop it.
 
Onceler said:
There is no reason to be so hostile. You asserted that life did NOT exist elsewhere. That's a very definitive conclusion. The fact is, we have not DISCOVERED life elsewhere, which is hardly proof that it doesn't exist. And it is a mistake to say that we have examined every planet closely. We have not.
Click to expand...

Although I am a creationist, I find myself in agreement with you. I must accept the possibility that life may have been created on other planets. Many Christians somehow reach the conclusion that there cannot be life on other worlds because the Bible is silent on the matter. My response is that there many things which aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible and yet we know these things to be true.

Scripture does not reveal every mystery. I for one think it would be exciting if there is indeed extraterrestrial life. Until we make contact however, my thought on the matter is "I don't know." Nobody does.
 
Tabasco said:
Although I am a creationist, I find myself in agreement with you. I must accept the possibility that life may have been created on other planets. Many Christians somehow reach the conclusion that there cannot be life on other worlds because the Bible is silent on the matter. My response is that there many things which aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible and yet we know these things to be true.

Scripture does not reveal every mystery. I for one think it would be exciting if there is indeed extraterrestrial life. Until we make contact however, my thought on the matter is "I don't know." Nobody does.
Click to expand...

And, I will add to your point, old locales mentioned in the Bible, such as Eden, need not have been on Earth.
 
Beefy said:
Yes. They have only been in old, high, Jewish writer's heads.
Click to expand...
It was the name of the spaceship that brought the first genetic code with it here. Someday the people who paid for this Terra forming project are going to show up and want what they paid for.
 
Beefy said:
Yes. They have only been in old, high, Jewish writer's heads.
Click to expand...

There was a time when great athletes didn't need steroirds, great musical artists didn't need narcotics, and great visual artists didn't need psychadelics. I think the Jewish prophets lived sufficiently long enough ago to qualify as sober with their astounding language arts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top