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

[Ringtone]

Lets say that ALL experiments and ALL conjectures about how abiogenesis occurred are totally and utterly false. None of them make any sense or are even remotely plausible.

That leaves you with one simple fact: there was no life on earth and then there was simple life that evolved into the state of affairs we see today. That fact strongly supports abiogenesis.

Present a coherent theory that is more explanatory than current abiogenesis theories and what sort of predictions can come of that theory. Otherwise, the statements that abiogenesis are a 'bridge to far' are irrelevant appeals to incredulity.

If abiogenesis is impossible, God didn't program nature to produce life via a process of chemical evolution. Rather, He created life directly via a feat of biochemical engineering.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If abiogenesis is impossible, God didn't program nature to produce life via a process of chemical evolution. Rather, He created life directly via a feat of biochemical engineering.

So you don't think your God is capable of abiogenesis.

 

[Mushroom]

It's perplexing how you don't seem to grasp that the excerpts from the article

It is not an "article". It is your personal ramblings.

 

[Ringtone]

It is not an "article". It is your personal ramblings.

The only ramblings going on around here are questions and comments about things you didn't read. Now drop and give me twenty, as well as a groovin' melody for this thread: Songs that be like downhome shady, smooth groovin'.

Make sure it has a smooth, slow-hand vibe, baby. Lay some daddy snap on it.

 

[Mushroom]

The only ramblings going on around here are questions and comments about things you didn't read.

Here is the thing. I did read through it. The entire thing was all the same. YOU rambling about how you do not accept the findings of anything, screaming at atheists, and how they got it all wrong.

Tell you what, submit it for a peer review. Or even publishing in an actual journal.

I did read it, it is the same nonsense for the entire thing that I pointed out in the first three pages.

I could not care less, and my having read it was an hour or so I wish I had back as it was a complete waste of my time. I had not read so much coprolite since I read the Ted Kaczynski's "Industrial Society and Its Future" I think I got more out of "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" by Dr. Asimov than I did out of your drivel.

 

[Ringtone]

Here is the thing. I did read through it. The entire thing was all the same. YOU rambling about how you do not accept the findings of anything, screaming at atheists, and how they got it all wrong.

Tell you what, submit it for a peer review. Or even publishing in an actual journal.

I did read it, it is the same nonsense for the entire thing that I pointed out in the first three pages.

I could not care less, and my having read it was an hour or so I wish I had back as it was a complete waste of my time. I had not read so much coprolite since I read the Ted Kaczynski's "Industrial Society and Its Future" I think I got more out of "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" by Dr. Asimov than I did out of your drivel.

And yet you imply that I didn't address things that I indubitably did and continue to imply that I dismissed the findings of the very best research because the findings and my account of them are incongruent.

False!

The leading lights and I wholeheartedly agree on what the research divulges. We don't agree that naturalism is necessarily true. Similarly, researchers generally agree on the findings but disagree over the plausibility of any given experient's underlying hypothesis.

Also, anyone can say "that's stupid" or "that's rubbish" san specifics and direct arguments.

It's quite another to cite specific instances.

All we've gotten from you is generic ad hominem.

Perplexing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet you imply that I didn't address things that I indubitably did and continue to imply that I dismissed the findings of the very best research because the findings and my account of them are incongruent.

False!

The leading lights and I wholeheartedly agree on what the research divulges. We don't agree that naturalism is necessarily true. Similarly, researchers generally agree on the findings but disagree over the plausibility of any given experient's underlying hypothesis.

Also, anyone can say "that's stupid" or "that's rubbish" san specifics and direct arguments.

It's quite another to cite specific instances.

All we've gotten from you is generic ad hominem.

Perplexing.

That's a lot of self soothing psychobabble, when you could have just said,

"I know my paper would get laughed off the planet, if I tried to publish it in a scientific journal."

 

[Mushroom]

And yet you imply that I didn't address things that I indubitably did

Yes, your "addressing". Saying that they were rubbish, without any reason other than your "beliefs".

Look, it is garbage. I do not care what you think. You give no evidence other than your outright rejection. You self-published and it has gone through absolutely no peer review of any kind (not even the most sloppy in "pay per article" type of journals), it is simply you saying over and over again that everybody is wrong.

Your "paper" and "expert" opinions are drivel. But please tell me, how many accept your writings? But please, continue to self-flagellate as much as you want. But don't go around demanding that others believe or respect you for it. That is arrogance.

Kind of like your proclaiming that having self-published that you are an "expert". Self-flagellation.

 

[Ringtone]

Here is the thing. I did read through it. The entire thing was all the same. YOU rambling about how you do not accept the findings of anything, screaming at atheists, and how they got it all wrong.

Tell you what, submit it for a peer review. Or even publishing in an actual journal.

I did read it, it is the same nonsense for the entire thing that I pointed out in the first three pages.

I could not care less, and my having read it was an hour or so I wish I had back as it was a complete waste of my time. I had not read so much coprolite since I read the Ted Kaczynski's "Industrial Society and Its Future" I think I got more out of "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" by Dr. Asimov than I did out of your drivel.

Also, lay some cool breeze on me here, bone daddy: Songs that be like downhome shady, smooth groovin'. Make is nice, real niiiice, and put some you're mama good looky funk on it, with a dash of easy livin' and fish be a-jumpin'.

 

[Ringtone]

Yes, your "addressing". Saying that they were rubbish, without any reason other than your "beliefs".

Look, it is garbage. I do not care what you think. You give no evidence other than your outright rejection. You self-published and it has gone through absolutely no peer review of any kind (not even the most sloppy in "pay per article" type of journals), it is simply you saying over and over again that everybody is wrong.

Your "paper" and "expert" opinions are drivel. But please tell me, how many accept your writings? But please, continue to self-flagellate as much as you want. But don't go around demanding that others believe or respect you for it. That is arrogance.

Kind of like your proclaiming that having self-published that you are an "expert". Self-flagellation.

You don't care? Then why did you inquire about the impetus of my opinion in the first place?

I'm sniffin', but all I can smell is ad hominem and bad faith. Ooh-ooh, that stank.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You don't care? Then why did you inquire about the impetus of my opinion in the first place?

I'm sniffin', but all I can smell is ad hominem and bad faith. Ooh-ooh, that stank.

Well, look up at the scoreboard, then. That's you losing eleventy trillion to zero

 

[FA_Q2]

If abiogenesis is impossible, God didn't program nature to produce life via a process of chemical evolution. Rather, He created life directly via a feat of biochemical engineering.

If abiogenesis is impossible is a pretty massive if.

And you have not presented a coherent theory, just a conjecture. You need more than a bland statement.

 

[sealybobo]

There is no hell, moron.

There are no angels and no ET's either.

It's all make believe.

Dude, I was kidding about going to hell. Lol

 

[sealybobo]

It's perplexing how you don't seem to grasp that the excerpts from the article directly address your observation and subsequent questions.

How did you miss that the first time and then miss that again?

It's almost as if you're not really reading things.

I think you’re a rambling bullshitter.

 

[sealybobo]

If abiogenesis is impossible is a pretty massive if.

And you have not presented a coherent theory, just a conjecture. You need more than a bland statement.

His fatal flaw in his argument is him saying god did or didn’t do something, assuming god is real and a given. It is not. So this guy is having an argument you can only have with another person who also believes god is real. Otherwise, back the fuck up.

 

[sealybobo]

Only because you are delusional. Nobody is going to read your magical manifesto.

It’s lik which flaw in his argument do I start with first. Or, if any of what he’s saying is even true, does it prove what he thinks it proves? And to insert a god into your story as a way something came to be, is lazy and ignorant.

 

[sealybobo]

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

You started out by saying

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

You lost me right away. You’re not good communicator.

 

[Ringtone]

If abiogenesis is impossible is a pretty massive if.

And you have not presented a coherent theory, just a conjecture. You need more than a bland statement.

You are not to be taken seriously.

 

[sealybobo]

You are not to be taken seriously.

We think the same about you. Fos.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Science is gambling, it's relying on odds there's life out there. Until we know where life came from, alien lifeform is beyond the realms of science.