The big question about life on other planets: 1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

[Unkotare]

I'll make Jesus cry if he doesn't edge the west side of the lawn. I'm docking his check.

You're paying by check?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're paying by check?

It's fantasyland. He's paying with unicorn poo.

 

[sealybobo]

It's not, you brainless bigot.

Got anything to back up your position you little bitch?

A new study finds that atheists think there just might be aliens out there. Evangelicals are not so sure.​

Eighty-five percent of atheists and agnostics say their best guess is that intelligent life does exist beyond Earth. So do 80% of unaffiliated Americans, also known as nones.

By contrast, only 51% of Protestants — and 40% of white evangelicals — are open to the possibility of intelligent aliens. So are about two-thirds of Catholics and mainline Protestants and about half (55%) of Black Protestants.

So fuck off unkotare. Sometimes I think you argue with me despite the fact it's obvious I'm right. You argue just to argue. I could say snow is cold and you'd say it isn't. Fuck off asshole. Go troll someone else for a change.

For atheists, the idea of aliens seems real. Religious people doubt it.

(RNS) — A new study finds that atheists think there just might be aliens out there. Evangelicals are not so sure.

religionnews.com

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

 

[sealybobo]

You're paying by check?

You clearly don't go to church. How do you pay your dues? You give a wad of money? He's not talking about when they pass the hat. He's talking about paying your annual dues. You know, 10% of your paycheck?

Yea right. Like you give even 1% of your paycheck to a church.

 

[Ringtone]

"Talking smack", when I am actually quoting your own writing.



And you accuse me of "Talking smack". That is clear as day on page 2 of your "report".



Oh yes, because all serious researchers go to Yahoo! Answers to get real discussion going about research papers over 50 years old. And if it is false why you claim, why even bring it up at all? Of course, that was also on page 2. Lots of smack there from you.



Wow, first time in something claiming to be "scientific" that used an online nickname. Unless there is a Doctor Lord Fluffy Tail OBE running around England somewhere. And interesting, the planet was "oxygen rich" even before amino acids. Of course, absolutely no explanation (once again) on how that happened. I guess, magic?

And FYI, I am still only on page 2!

Honest, I do not see how anybody could read through that coprolite. Even by the end of the second page I was shaking my head. Accusations and mud slinging at I have no idea who. Claims with absolutely nothing to say why. It is nonsense.

But please, I invite anybody else to even try and read through it, and let me know if I am accurate in this assessment.

All I can say is, perplexing.

Perplexing.

Perplexing.

And I leave, with this gem.



Holy Run-On-Sentence Batman! And yes, I edited nothing, that was exactly as written. Almost 9 full lines, an almost incomprehensible mashup that just goes on and on and on almost endlessly.

And as always absolutely nothing explaining how you come to that "consensus", simply that we apparently must believe you without reason, just because you say so.

By all means, let's take a look at that perplexing flourish of observations.

Trust me. The apparatus of the Miller-Urey experiment did not produce nucleic acids or anything else like them. 1​

​

What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble, carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic melanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic-like, spark discharge system, which increased airflow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines. 2​

​

(See table of amino acids produced and identified in the ‘classic’ 1952 experiment, as published by Miller in 1953, the 2008 re-analysis of vials from the volcanic spark discharge experiment, and the 2010 re-analysis of vials from the H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. —Wikipedia)​

​

The significance of the recently uncovered results produced by the altered apparatus does not go to the synthesis of proteins as a result of the inherent chemical properties of their molecular precursors within atmospheric conditions that entail a more vaporous, volcanic-gas-like mixture of steam. It goes to the more impressive results that are derived under these simulated conditions coupled with the potentialities of the RNA-world hypothesis and its obligatory molecular precursors. Hence, Senior Correspondent Stephen K Ritter misses the target when he assumes that the team of researchers who analyzed the results of the unpublished experiments “speculate that amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have been polymerized by carbonyl sulfide—volcanic gas—to form peptides leading to proteins” (Stephen K. Ritter; Oct. 16, 2008; “Origin-of-Life Chemistry Revisited”; Chemical and Engineering News-Prebiotic Chemistry).​

​

They could not have sensibly speculated any such thing, as it is well known that amino acids do not form lasting peptide bonds, let alone proteins, under any natural conditions outside living organisms. And this is true under laboratory conditions as well, whether their mixtures are racemic, as is always the case in nature, or even artificially homochiral.​

​

The original apparatus of the published experiment simulated a strictly reducing atmosphere consisting of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water. In the same article, Ritter observes: “scientists who have analyzed Miller’s experiments doubt that the highly reducing reaction conditions he used existed on early Earth”; however, the apparatus equipped with the aspirating mechanism simulated the more “intense conditions of a lightning-laced volcanic eruption." Hence, the researchers aver that ”[t]he volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective". Precisely! But what the researchers mean by effective goes to the formation of amino acids only, and only within the domains of semi-reducing, carbonyl-sulfide-producing atmospheres of "volcanic island systems", as the more generally oxidizing atmosphere beyond would prevent their formation.​

​

The problem with this scenario is that under natural conditions the newly created precursors could not have stayed inside these atmospheric enclaves for long, for unlike the artificial conditions calculatedly arranged within the apparatuses of laboratories, which artificially remove potentially biotic materials from the synthesizing medium once they are formed, nature would have continued to bombard them and thusly would have destroyed them with the very same source of energy it used to create them. Worse, the vastly more copious abiotic materials that would have also been produced would have continued to react with the racemic mixtures of the biotic materials within the synthesizing medium and would have readily incorporated the latter into compounds that would have been utterly useless to life.​

​

Miller’s experiment did produce … amino acids, but only by continuously circulating the reaction mixture and isolating products as they were formed. The quantities were still tiny and not in the same proportions as found in nature. One of the causes of the low yield has been identified by [Edward] Peltzer who worked with Miller. As the amino acids were formed they reacted with reducing sugars … forming a brown tar around Miller’s apparatus. Ultimately, Miller was producing large compounds called mellanoids, with amino acids as an intermediate product. — J. H. John Peet (Oct. 2005), “The Miller-Urey Experiment”, Truth in Science​

​

But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would not have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres (Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth; Study suggests early Earth’s atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide).​

​

Perplexing.​

 

[Ringtone]

As if that would actually make a difference?

As I said, I did read it. And it is nonsense. More political and religious tract than actual science. Self-published on a site where people put up their own works and not vetted or checked at all.

But here, does this make you happy?



Oh yes, just the very opening sentence most serious scientific works open with.

It is really nothing more than a long running example of mental masturbation. Where you applaud and tell some that they got it right, then scream at anybody that you think got it wrong. Attacking multiple scientific papers with nothing more than "They got it wrong!" and "They do not know what they are doing!" if you are not just attacking them for being atheists.

I think I have flushed papers recently that were of more interest.

PERPLEXING

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By all means, let's take a look at that perplexing flourish of observations.

Trust me. The apparatus of the Miller-Urey experiment did not produce nucleic acids or anything else like them. 1​

​

What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble, carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic melanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic-like, spark discharge system, which increased airflow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines. 2​

​

(See table of amino acids produced and identified in the ‘classic’ 1952 experiment, as published by Miller in 1953, the 2008 re-analysis of vials from the volcanic spark discharge experiment, and the 2010 re-analysis of vials from the H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. —Wikipedia)​

​

The significance of the recently uncovered results produced by the altered apparatus does not go to the synthesis of proteins as a result of the inherent chemical properties of their molecular precursors within atmospheric conditions that entail a more vaporous, volcanic-gas-like mixture of steam. It goes to the more impressive results that are derived under these simulated conditions coupled with the potentialities of the RNA-world hypothesis and its obligatory molecular precursors. Hence, Senior Correspondent Stephen K Ritter misses the target when he assumes that the team of researchers who analyzed the results of the unpublished experiments “speculate that amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have been polymerized by carbonyl sulfide—volcanic gas—to form peptides leading to proteins” (Stephen K. Ritter; Oct. 16, 2008; “Origin-of-Life Chemistry Revisited”; Chemical and Engineering News-Prebiotic Chemistry).​

​

They could not have sensibly speculated any such thing, as it is well known that amino acids do not form lasting peptide bonds, let alone proteins, under any natural conditions outside living organisms. And this is true under laboratory conditions as well, whether their mixtures are racemic, as is always the case in nature, or even artificially homochiral.​

​

The original apparatus of the published experiment simulated a strictly reducing atmosphere consisting of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water. In the same article, Ritter observes: “scientists who have analyzed Miller’s experiments doubt that the highly reducing reaction conditions he used existed on early Earth”; however, the apparatus equipped with the aspirating mechanism simulated the more “intense conditions of a lightning-laced volcanic eruption." Hence, the researchers aver that ”[t]he volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective". Precisely! But what the researchers mean by effective goes to the formation of amino acids only, and only within the domains of semi-reducing, carbonyl-sulfide-producing atmospheres of "volcanic island systems", as the more generally oxidizing atmosphere beyond would prevent their formation.​

​

The problem with this scenario is that under natural conditions the newly created precursors could not have stayed inside these atmospheric enclaves for long, for unlike the artificial conditions calculatedly arranged within the apparatuses of laboratories, which artificially remove potentially biotic materials from the synthesizing medium once they are formed, nature would have continued to bombard them and thusly would have destroyed them with the very same source of energy it used to create them. Worse, the vastly more copious abiotic materials that would have also been produced would have continued to react with the racemic mixtures of the biotic materials within the synthesizing medium and would have readily incorporated the latter into compounds that would have been utterly useless to life.​

​

Miller’s experiment did produce … amino acids, but only by continuously circulating the reaction mixture and isolating products as they were formed. The quantities were still tiny and not in the same proportions as found in nature. One of the causes of the low yield has been identified by [Edward] Peltzer who worked with Miller. As the amino acids were formed they reacted with reducing sugars … forming a brown tar around Miller’s apparatus. Ultimately, Miller was producing large compounds called mellanoids, with amino acids as an intermediate product. — J. H. John Peet (Oct. 2005), “The Miller-Urey Experiment”, Truth in Science​

​

But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would not have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres (Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth; Study suggests early Earth’s atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide).​

​

Perplexing.​

Still lying about the Miller Urey experiment, I see.

Did you not get the memo that this idiot creationer talking point is a lie for ignorant people?

 

[sealybobo]

By all means, let's take a look at that perplexing flourish of observations.

Trust me. The apparatus of the Miller-Urey experiment did not produce nucleic acids or anything else like them. 1​

​

What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble, carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic melanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic-like, spark discharge system, which increased airflow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines. 2​

​

(See table of amino acids produced and identified in the ‘classic’ 1952 experiment, as published by Miller in 1953, the 2008 re-analysis of vials from the volcanic spark discharge experiment, and the 2010 re-analysis of vials from the H2S-rich spark discharge experiment. —Wikipedia)​

​

The significance of the recently uncovered results produced by the altered apparatus does not go to the synthesis of proteins as a result of the inherent chemical properties of their molecular precursors within atmospheric conditions that entail a more vaporous, volcanic-gas-like mixture of steam. It goes to the more impressive results that are derived under these simulated conditions coupled with the potentialities of the RNA-world hypothesis and its obligatory molecular precursors. Hence, Senior Correspondent Stephen K Ritter misses the target when he assumes that the team of researchers who analyzed the results of the unpublished experiments “speculate that amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have been polymerized by carbonyl sulfide—volcanic gas—to form peptides leading to proteins” (Stephen K. Ritter; Oct. 16, 2008; “Origin-of-Life Chemistry Revisited”; Chemical and Engineering News-Prebiotic Chemistry).​

​

They could not have sensibly speculated any such thing, as it is well known that amino acids do not form lasting peptide bonds, let alone proteins, under any natural conditions outside living organisms. And this is true under laboratory conditions as well, whether their mixtures are racemic, as is always the case in nature, or even artificially homochiral.​

​

The original apparatus of the published experiment simulated a strictly reducing atmosphere consisting of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water. In the same article, Ritter observes: “scientists who have analyzed Miller’s experiments doubt that the highly reducing reaction conditions he used existed on early Earth”; however, the apparatus equipped with the aspirating mechanism simulated the more “intense conditions of a lightning-laced volcanic eruption." Hence, the researchers aver that ”[t]he volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective". Precisely! But what the researchers mean by effective goes to the formation of amino acids only, and only within the domains of semi-reducing, carbonyl-sulfide-producing atmospheres of "volcanic island systems", as the more generally oxidizing atmosphere beyond would prevent their formation.​

​

The problem with this scenario is that under natural conditions the newly created precursors could not have stayed inside these atmospheric enclaves for long, for unlike the artificial conditions calculatedly arranged within the apparatuses of laboratories, which artificially remove potentially biotic materials from the synthesizing medium once they are formed, nature would have continued to bombard them and thusly would have destroyed them with the very same source of energy it used to create them. Worse, the vastly more copious abiotic materials that would have also been produced would have continued to react with the racemic mixtures of the biotic materials within the synthesizing medium and would have readily incorporated the latter into compounds that would have been utterly useless to life.​

​

Miller’s experiment did produce … amino acids, but only by continuously circulating the reaction mixture and isolating products as they were formed. The quantities were still tiny and not in the same proportions as found in nature. One of the causes of the low yield has been identified by [Edward] Peltzer who worked with Miller. As the amino acids were formed they reacted with reducing sugars … forming a brown tar around Miller’s apparatus. Ultimately, Miller was producing large compounds called mellanoids, with amino acids as an intermediate product. — J. H. John Peet (Oct. 2005), “The Miller-Urey Experiment”, Truth in Science​

​

But the real problem for the synthesis of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere is that in spite of the latter’s abundance of free electrons, it would not have provided an ozone layer to protect the amino acids produced in it. If the electrical energy that induced their synthesis in one instant did not reduce them to their basic elements or induce harmful reactions in the next, the entire range of UV light’s wavelengths would have slapped them silly. And biologically useful organic compounds do not form in oxidizing atmospheres (Setting the Stage for Life: Scientists Make Key Discovery About the Atmosphere of Early Earth; Study suggests early Earth’s atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide).​

​

Perplexing.​

All organisms are built from the same six essential elemental ingredients: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.

Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. ... They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome.

Scientists create the simplest cell with only bare essentials for life and reproduction. A team of scientists stripped a bacterial cell down to a minimum. Their work will help shed light on the genes required for basic cellular functions.

The idea of creating a new universe in the lab is no joke

Today physicists are taking the concept of creating a universe seriously, and have sketched out rough blueprints for how humanity might one day achieve it, though this concept has serious theological implications, and moral responsibilities if fallible humans take on the role of cosmic creators.

www.britannica.com

 

[Ringtone]

All organisms are built from the same six essential elemental ingredients: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.

Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. ... They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome.

Scientists create the simplest cell with only bare essentials for life and reproduction. A team of scientists stripped a bacterial cell down to a minimum. Their work will help shed light on the genes required for basic cellular functions.

The idea of creating a new universe in the lab is no joke

Today physicists are taking the concept of creating a universe seriously, and have sketched out rough blueprints for how humanity might one day achieve it, though this concept has serious theological implications, and moral responsibilities if fallible humans take on the role of cosmic creators.

www.britannica.com

I discuss similar achievements in the article, but what does biochemical engineering have to do with abiogenesis?

 

[Mushroom]

Still lying about the Miller Urey experiment, I see.

Did you not get the memo that this idiot creationer talking point is a lie for ignorant people?

And even more interestingly, what was discovered after Miller's death in 2007 and 2008 when some went back over his original equipment. Where inside of the vials used they found over 40 different amino acid compounds. Most modern researchers speculate that either the equipment that was used then was too primitive to have detected this much larger number than expected, or that they required time to combine into such and it did not happen immediately after the experiment but more slowly over time.

But it is obvious by the constant attacks on that one single experiment and then not looking at any later recreations or examination of the samples from the experiment itself with more modern equipment is a huge failure. As I stated, not a scientific paper but a religious tract. And still no evidence on what makes Ringy an "expert" in the subject.

Maybe Lord Fluffy Bunny can answer that.

 

[Ringtone]

All organisms are built from the same six essential elemental ingredients: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.

Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. ... They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome.

Scientists create the simplest cell with only bare essentials for life and reproduction. A team of scientists stripped a bacterial cell down to a minimum. Their work will help shed light on the genes required for basic cellular functions.

The idea of creating a new universe in the lab is no joke

Today physicists are taking the concept of creating a universe seriously, and have sketched out rough blueprints for how humanity might one day achieve it, though this concept has serious theological implications, and moral responsibilities if fallible humans take on the role of cosmic creators.

www.britannica.com

That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins. In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evinces an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth. 3

Perplexing.

It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities. But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today. The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits. It doesn’t.

Perplexing.

Still, despite the paltry concentrations of the organic materials produced relative to the energy expended, the best bet for amino acids would have been a semi-reducing atmosphere akin to that simulated in the unpublished experiments. At least the pertinent, organic materials produced in those were more voluminous and diverse. Also, it seems reasonable to assume that the dynamics of the altered atmospheric model would have moved the materials away from the lingering dangers inside the synthesizing medium, past the threats beyond, and into the primordial soup of the oceans below more rapidly.

It’s all pie-in-the-sky nonsense, of course, but as long as we’re already suspending disbelief far above any reasonable altitude, we might as well go along with the tale forever: never mind the threats beyond the synthesizing medium, never mind the ubiquitous cross-reaction contaminants, never mind that water ultimately pushes peptidyl bonding backward, not forward, would disperse the precursors of proteins and condemn them to the whims of a churning and lonely isolation, and never mind most of all that the total amount of organic compounds on Earth today, relative to the overwhelming, abiotic reactions in raw nature, is less than a fraction of the lofty concentrations that would be plausibly favorable to the inscrutable processes of abiogenesis. After all, the other precursors of life, which improbably braved and overcame the same obstacles, have need of their prebiotic cousins. The long and arduous journey toward self-awareness must go on by way of an even more implausible series of elaborately complex and fortuitous accidents.

The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that. But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us? Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.

The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life. And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.

How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms? The process could not have been accumulative but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons. All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities that stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.

If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel. If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?

We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall. And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.

Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go. While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials. And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years. (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)

 

[Ringtone]

And even more interestingly, what was discovered after Miller's death in 2007 and 2008 when some went back over his original equipment. Where inside of the vials used they found over 40 different amino acid compounds. Most modern researchers speculate that either the equipment that was used then was too primitive to have detected this much larger number than expected, or that they required time to combine into such and it did not happen immediately after the experiment but more slowly over time.

But it is obvious by the constant attacks on that one single experiment and then not looking at any later recreations or examination of the samples from the experiment itself with more modern equipment is a huge failure. As I stated, not a scientific paper but a religious tract. And still no evidence on what makes Ringy an "expert" in the subject.

Maybe Lord Fluffy Bunny can answer that.

And if you had read the bulk of the article you would know that I discuss the later findings of Miller-Urey as well. They do now impinge on the pertinent facts of peptidyl bonding. Everybody knows that life up from amino acids is a dead end.

 

[Ringtone]

PERPLEXING

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're paying by check?

The gardener is paid by an "e-check" which is automatic...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Got anything to back up your position you little bitch?

A new study finds that atheists think there just might be aliens out there. Evangelicals are not so sure.​

Eighty-five percent of atheists and agnostics say their best guess is that intelligent life does exist beyond Earth. So do 80% of unaffiliated Americans, also known as nones.

By contrast, only 51% of Protestants — and 40% of white evangelicals — are open to the possibility of intelligent aliens. So are about two-thirds of Catholics and mainline Protestants and about half (55%) of Black Protestants.

So fuck off unkotare. Sometimes I think you argue with me despite the fact it's obvious I'm right. You argue just to argue. I could say snow is cold and you'd say it isn't. Fuck off asshole. Go troll someone else for a change.

For atheists, the idea of aliens seems real. Religious people doubt it.

(RNS) — A new study finds that atheists think there just might be aliens out there. Evangelicals are not so sure.

religionnews.com

Do you ever get sick of being wrong?

So Atheists just took the belief in one set of magical beings and transferred to another set of magical beings.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You clearly don't go to church. How do you pay your dues? You give a wad of money? He's not talking about when they pass the hat. He's talking about paying your annual dues. You know, 10% of your paycheck?

Yea right. Like you give even 1% of your paycheck to a church.

Silly Bonobo, a superstitious moron like you has trouble following basic conversations, but we were talking about the gardener.

Also, I don't think most churches have annual dues?

Maybe the Mormons.

Does your church of Gaia and the blessed Anthropogenic Global Warming have yearly dues? I thought infant sacrifice covered that?

 

[sealybobo]

That’s why the outgassing calculi of the 2005 study based on the chondritic model of planetary formation, which at first blush seemed to revive the reducing atmosphere hypothesis, wouldn’t resolve the problem of an abiogenic account for life’s origins. In any event, the isolated credibility of the chondritic, outgassing calculi do not explain away the incontrovertible geological evidence that evinces an oxidizing atmosphere for early Earth. 3

Perplexing.

It seems that the only atmospheric model that would be favorable to the prospects of abiogenesis would entail some sort of synthesis of the two possibilities. But even if the chemical constituents of abiogenesis were profitably given over to the thralls of a semi-reducing atmosphere all those many years ago, we see no evidence of that today. The geological record would contain an overflowing abundance of nitrogen-rich mineral deposits. It doesn’t.

Perplexing.

Still, despite the paltry concentrations of the organic materials produced relative to the energy expended, the best bet for amino acids would have been a semi-reducing atmosphere akin to that simulated in the unpublished experiments. At least the pertinent, organic materials produced in those were more voluminous and diverse. Also, it seems reasonable to assume that the dynamics of the altered atmospheric model would have moved the materials away from the lingering dangers inside the synthesizing medium, past the threats beyond, and into the primordial soup of the oceans below more rapidly.

It’s all pie-in-the-sky nonsense, of course, but as long as we’re already suspending disbelief far above any reasonable altitude, we might as well go along with the tale forever: never mind the threats beyond the synthesizing medium, never mind the ubiquitous cross-reaction contaminants, never mind that water ultimately pushes peptidyl bonding backward, not forward, would disperse the precursors of proteins and condemn them to the whims of a churning and lonely isolation, and never mind most of all that the total amount of organic compounds on Earth today, relative to the overwhelming, abiotic reactions in raw nature, is less than a fraction of the lofty concentrations that would be plausibly favorable to the inscrutable processes of abiogenesis. After all, the other precursors of life, which improbably braved and overcame the same obstacles, have need of their prebiotic cousins. The long and arduous journey toward self-awareness must go on by way of an even more implausible series of elaborately complex and fortuitous accidents.

The Miller-Urey experiments showed that under the right conditions nature might be able to build some of life’s amino acids; later discoveries in space and here on Earth confirmed that. But that in and of itself was not the rhyme or the reason of the experiments’ underlying hypothesis, and beyond that, what have these experiments shown us? Well, not much about that which was expected, but plenty about that which is obvious.

The natural occurrence of amino acids is light years away from life, and there exists no consistently coherent or demonstrable explanation for how they aggregated and combined via the rudimentary, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to form the complex proteins we find in life. And even if such a thing were possible, we’d still not be there.

How did the many thousands of mindless proteins, which can only function within a very narrow range of conditions, aggregate and combine in the exact sequences required to build the hundreds of intricately complex and interdependent pieces of machinery minimally required by the simplest microorganisms? The process could not have been accumulative but had to have been instantaneously synchronous for obvious reasons. All these things evince a certain set of preconditions and necessities that stupid materialist layman will never understand and agenda-driven scientists rarely acknowledge.

If one allows that an intelligent agent was required to create the simplest lifeform, one opens the door to a world wherein the regnant theory for the development of the other, more complex lifeforms might unravel. If an intelligent agent did it once, what would prevent him from doing it again and again?

We now know that life arose much earlier than was ever thought possible, and the ramifications of this are devastating for the prospects of abiogenesis, which just keeps running into wall after wall after wall. And the more apparent the complexity of the genome and the infrastructural machinery and processes of the cell become, the denser the walls become.

Ultimately, we really don’t have a clue about how to explain any of this without considering the necessity of a preexisting intelligence, which is precisely why an increasing number of biologists are hesitantly going where most are ill-disposed to go. While it still wouldn’t scientifically resolve the problem of ultimate origins concerning the known lifeforms on Earth, at the very least the evidence points to intelligent extraterrestrials. And that is precisely the point ID scientists have been making for years. (Also, the various hypotheses of panspermia typically serve to further confuse the matter in the minds of many, as the ultimate problem is not the potentially more favorable conditions of other planetary systems in the past and in space, but, as we shall see more clearly, information.)

What are you trying to say here? Sum it up.

 

[sealybobo]

Silly Bonobo, a superstitious moron like you has trouble following basic conversations, but we were talking about the gardener.

Also, I don't think most churches have annual dues?

Maybe the Mormons.

Does your church of Gaia and the blessed Anthropogenic Global Warming have yearly dues? I thought infant sacrifice covered that?

The Greek Orthodox Church has dues and I believe most churches do. You may not be an actual member of the church you go to. You're just a party crasher. A free loader. You're going to hell.

 

[sealybobo]

Silly Bonobo, a superstitious moron like you has trouble following basic conversations, but we were talking about the gardener.

Also, I don't think most churches have annual dues?

Maybe the Mormons.

Does your church of Gaia and the blessed Anthropogenic Global Warming have yearly dues? I thought infant sacrifice covered that?

We know so very little.

Astronomers have shown that the galaxy gives birth to about seven new stars per year. They are now working on an estimate of the second term, the fraction of stars that form planets. All the rest is still guesswork.

Seager's new equation makes no assumption that extraterrestrials are intelligent and using radio technology. Instead, she simply works on the idea that life of any type may be present in sufficient abundance to alter the chemical composition of its planet's atmosphere.

The only way to know if there is truly life on other worlds is to design and build missions that will look for it. Thankfully, Seager is at the forefront of that effort too. Her planet-finding telescope, TESS, will be launched by Nasa around 2017 and could locate hundreds of Earth-sized planets.

NASA's TESS space telescope has found more than 2,200 exoplanet candidates so far, including hundred of smaller rocky worlds.

Isn't it way too early to say you don't believe there is life elsewhere?

 

[Ringtone]

What are you trying to say here? Sum it up.

My point is that you didn't really read the paper, and your question here underscores that. There's really no reason for your rancor. By the way, hit me with some songs that be like downhome shady, smooth groovin'. Make 'em nicccce, real nicccce, and put some sweet Motha Jane on 'em.

​

Songs that be like downhome shady, smooth groovin'

www.usmessageboard.com