Organic Materials Essential for Life on Earth are Found for the First time on the Surface of an Asteroid

[BackAgain]

Not so.

Single-celled life (fossil stromatolites), Fossils, Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky.

I think what you mean to say is that finding the fossil of the very first single-celled organism to have ever existed would be impossible.

No. That’s the fossilized remains of a secretion. It is not the fossilized remains of the original one cell life-form itself.

It is important to be precise because, otherwise, pathetic morons like Farty will fail to grasp how wrong they are and where they have gone astray.

When we do see fossilized remains of any creature, we see aspects of that creature itself. For example, we can see in some ancient and now extinct dinosaur fossils things as discrete as impressions of feathers. These fossilized remains are the stuff that can be left behind.

As for a search for evidence of spark of THE actual FIRST life form, I agree with you. That quest seems silly to even consider.

 

[Ringtone]

No. That’s the fossilized remains of a secretion. It is not the fossilized remains of the original one cell life-form itself.

It is important to be precise because, otherwise, pathetic morons like Farty will fail to grasp how wrong they are and where they have gone astray.

When we do see fossilized remains of any creature, we see aspects of that creature itself. For example, we can see in some ancient and now extinct dinosaur fossils things as discrete as impressions of feathers. These fossilized remains are the stuff that can be left behind.

As for a search for evidence of spark of THE actual FIRST life form, I agree with you. That quest seems silly to even consider.

Oh, okay, I follow you now. You and I have always been on the same page. I didn't read the entire exchange between you and Fun. I merely misinterpreted your last post. Good eye.

 

[Ringtone]

Well, yes. Organic life would arise from strictly natural processes. What can you tell us about life arising from unnatural and / or supernatural processes?

Why is it foolish to conclude your versions of gods, which you can’t demonstrate or provide evidence for, are just different pleadings for fear and superstition? Your gods are distillations of the gods who were invented before the invention of your gods.

“Life comes from life…. because I say so”

Not an argument for those of us at the grown up table.

“Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism”​

Yes. I recall that grinding, ruthless plagiarizing of William Lane Craig you dumped into threads on this forum. It was just awful and you did a world class skedaddle when I shredded it so thoroughly it left you stuttering and mumbling.

Abiogenesis and William Lane Craig?! Plagiarized, eh? You have no idea how foolish and ignorant that makes you look. And you sure as hell didn't read my article on abiogenesis. Craig is a theistic evolutionist and for all I know may even believe that God preprogrammed nature to evolve life, akin to ding's view. Craig has never written anything on abiogenesis as far as I know.

You're a sociopath, Hollie. You routinely make things up. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[BackAgain]

Oh, okay, I follow you now. You and I have always been on the same page. I didn't the entire exchange between you and Fun. I merely misinterpreted your last post. Good eye.

No worries. None of this matters too much, anyway. The only real benefit I’ve derived in this thread is watching Farty going all apoplectic.

 

[Hollie]

Abiogenesis and William Lane Craig?! Plagiarized, eh? You have no idea how foolish and ignorant that makes you look. And you sure as hell didn't read my article on abiogenesis. Craig is a theistic evolutionist and for all I know may even believe that God preprogrammed nature to evolve life, akin to ding's view. Craig has never written anything on abiogenesis as far as I know.

You're a sociopath, Hollie. You routinely make things up. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Amidst all that melodrama, you neglected to provide or support any claims to your gods.

Aren’t you ashamed?

 

[Ringtone]

Amidst all that melodrama, you neglected to provide or support any claims to your gods.

Aren’t you ashamed?

That's it. You're cut off.

 

[Hollie]

That's it. You're cut off.

I’ll go with Olympic scoring and give you a 3/10 for whiny melodrama

You poor, dear.

Was it my request that you make an attempt to support your argument?

 

[BackAgain]

One can no more prove the existence of God than one can prove that life had to have been sparked absent something or someone literally supernatural.

 

[Hollie]

One can no more prove the existence of God than one can prove that life had to have been sparked absent something or someone literally supernatural.

That might be a conversation to be had with some of the believers in this forum who attribute absolutes to their gods.

 

[BackAgain]

That might be a conversation to be had with some of the believers in this forum who attribute absolutes to their gods.

Or maybe not one that need be had in a science thread?

Why is it so “important” for some atheists to become abusive to religious believers? Does it actually cause physical pain to some atheists to not have others agree with them?

 

[Hollie]

Or maybe not one that need be had in a science thread?

Why is it so “important” for some atheists to become abusive to religious believers? Does it actually cause physical pain to some atheists to not have others agree with them?

I agree that gods don’t belong in a science thread but I have to note that it’s believers who introduce their gods into these threads.

There is a certain frustration that develops when discussion of science matters is derailed by the introduction of gods. It’s a recognizable pattern during discussion of biology and evolution, for example, to have someone cut and paste walls of text from creation ministries “disproving”, hundreds of years of science discovery.

When confronted with Flat Earther arguments for a literal 6,000 year old planet, a literal biblical flood, humans in buckskin outfits frolicking with dinosaurs, etc., it gets old, fast.

 

[BackAgain]

I agree that gods don’t belong in a science thread but I have to note that it’s believers who introduce their gods into these threads.

There is a certain frustration that develops when discussion of science matters is derailed by the introduction of gods. It’s a recognizable pattern during discussion of biology and evolution, for example, to have someone cut and paste walls of text from creation ministries “disproving”, hundreds of years of science discovery.

When confronted with Flat Earther arguments for a literal 6,000 year old planet, a literal biblical flood, humans in buckskin outfits frolicking with dinosaurs, etc., it gets old, fast.

One can ignore the assertion of folks who choose to believe that the Earth’s flat or that it is only 6,000 or so years old. One can ignore people who claim that dinosaurs co-existed with cavemen.

Heck, you can even say, “that’s a claim and a belief which is not subject to proof and for good reason; it has no scientific validity.” But to ask for proof of God is now and has always been fatuous. And there isn’t much reason to try to be offensive to a person who has faith.

 

[Hollie]

One can ignore the assertion of folks who choose to believe that the Earth’s flat or that it is only 6,000 or so years old. One can ignore people who claim that dinosaurs co-existed with cavemen.

Heck, you can even say, “that’s a claim and a belief which is not subject to proof and for good reason; it has no scientific validity.” But to ask for proof of God is now and has always been fatuous. And there isn’t much reason to try to be offensive to a person who has faith.

That’s certainly a valid argument and mostly, usually, I ignore the Flat Earthers.

On the other hand, the heavy handed proselytizing that takes place and the willful spread of misinformation intended to deceive, that’s another matter.

 

[BackAgain]

That’s certainly a valid argument and mostly, usually, I ignore the Flat Earthers.

On the other hand, the heavy handed proselytizing that takes place and the willful spread of misinformation intended to deceive, that’s another matter.

I’m not sure what your reference is, so I cannot either agree or disagree. I would say that believing in God is not necessarily anti science. (I’m not including pseudo science that says the Earth is 6000 or so years old.)

Some very brilliant scientist have either expressed belief in God or at least concluded that they can’t rule God out.

 

[abu afak]

One can no more prove the existence of God than one can prove that life had to have been sparked absent something or someone literally supernatural.

"proof" is a false bar in science, and one creationists like to use for that reason. ie, Evolution is Not 'proven,' but it has overwhelming Evidence (and is a fact). Gods have no evidence. So even tho both aren't 'proven' they are not equally rational beliefs to hold.
`

 

[BackAgain]

"proof" is a false bar in science, and one creationists like to use for that reason. ie, Evolution is Not 'proven,' but it has overwhelming Evidence (and is a fact). Gods have no evidence. So even tho both aren't 'proven' they are not equally rational beliefs to hold.
`

I happen to agree with your recognition that the term “proof” is ambiguous. A similar problem of conflation sometimes occurs in the law when talking about “evidence.” Material offered at trial is most commonly referred to as evidence. But it is sometimes also referred to as “proof.”

Now, scientific theories are dependent themselves on how evidence is analyzed and interpreted. Although theories are not “proved,” necessarily, beyond all doubt, they can be so well established as to amount to “proof” which can be the basis for another step forward.

All of this inexorably leads us back to the cosmological argument. I know you have very determined views on that topic. I frankly don’t know. But I can say this much: any scientific based theory on the matter eventually involves the unknown and maybe the unknowable. And the best explanations outside of religion for the creation of this entire universe involve rejection of the rules of science as we now understand then. That is, like the math and science quantum physics, they are literally outside of nature.
Apart from nature. Supernatural.

 

[abu afak]

I happen to agree with your recognition that the term “proof” is ambiguous. A similar problem of conflation sometimes occurs in the law when talking about “evidence.” Material offered at trial is most commonly referred to as evidence. But it is sometimes also referred to as “proof.”

Now, scientific theories are dependent themselves on how evidence is analyzed and interpreted. Although theories are not “proved,” necessarily, beyond all doubt, they can be so well established as to amount to “proof” which can be the basis for another step forward.

When science says proof, they mean 100.00000%. (like Math's 2+2=4)
In court someone can be convicted and hung on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that science would Not call proof, but for which they (ie, evolution) have a better circumstantial case than one that would hang a man!

All of this inexorably leads us back to the cosmological argument. I know you have very determined views on that topic. I frankly don’t know. But I can say this much: any scientific based theory on the matter eventually involves the unknown and maybe the unknowable. And the best explanations outside of religion for the creation of this entire universe involve rejection of the rules of science as we now understand then. That is, like the math and science quantum physics, they are literally outside of nature.
Apart from nature. Supernatural.

My beliefs are solidly "I/we don't know/know yet," and I have repeated that endlessly.
Inferring gods for what one doesn't understand is "god of the gaps." (fallacious. see my thread of the title).
It's a variant of 'argument from Ignorance' or 'Incredulity.'
Just like inferring a god for ie, Fire, lightning, or fertility WAS.

If a god shows up or is evidenced I will be amazed, even thrilled, and will accept 'him' and his tenets. But I'm not holding my breath and remain an atheist.
Of Couse, that day and many after could mean chaos, disillusionment, and suicide for tens of millions of believers of different persuasions if any specificity of that god is indicated or implied.
`

 

[BackAgain]

When science says proof, they mean 100.00000%. (like Math's 2+2=4)
In court someone can be convicted and hung on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that science would Not call proof, but for which they (ie, evolution) have a better circumstantial case than one that would hang a man!


My beliefs are solidly "I/we don't know/know yet," and I have repeated that endlessly.
Inferring gods for what one doesn't understand is "god of the gaps." (fallacious. see my thread of the title).
It's a variant of 'argument from Ignorance' or 'Incredulity.'
Just like inferring a god for ie, Fire, lightning, or fertility WAS.

If a god shows up or is evidenced I will be amazed, even thrilled, and will accept 'him' and his tenets. But I'm not holding my breath and remain an atheist.
Of Couse, that day and many after could mean chaos, disillusionment, and suicide for tens of millions of believers of different persuasions if any specificity of that god is indicated or implied.
`

The inference of a divine creator may be wrong but it is not a fallacy.

 

[abu afak]

The inference of a divine creator may be wrong but it is not a fallacy.

Bizarre reply.
IAC, let me put it better. Even if there is a divine creator, inferring there is a one because one doesn't have a better or coherently explained answer at the moment remains a fallacy.
Again, just like the Fire, Lightning, and Fertility 'gods.'
`

 

[Turtlesoup]

MARCH 4, 2021
Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid
by Royal Holloway, University of London

​

New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an asteroid.​

​

The single grain sample was returned to Earth from asteroid Itokawa by JAXA's first Hayabusa mission in 2010. The sample shows that water and organic matter that originate from the asteroid itself have EVOLVED chemically through time.​

​

The research paper suggests that Itokawa has been constantly EVOLVING over billions of years by incorporating water and organic materials from foreign extra-terrestrial material, just like the Earth. In the past, the asteroid will have gone through extreme heating, dehydration and shattering due to catastrophic impact. However, despite this, the asteroid came back together from the shattered fragments and rehydrated itself with water that was delivered via the in fall of dust or carbon-rich meteorites.​

​

This study shows that S-type asteroids, where most of Earth's meteorites come from, such as Itokawa, contain the raw ingredients of life. The analysis of this asteroid changes traditional views on the origin of life on Earth...​

​

​

Organic materials essential for life on Earth are found for the first time on the surface of an asteroid

New research from Royal Holloway, has found water and organic matter on the surface of an asteroid sample returned from the inner Solar System. This is the first time that organic materials, which could have provided chemical precursors for the origin of life on Earth, have been found on an...

phys.org

​

​

`​

So life started on Earth probably by simple "seeding" from meteors etc.