There HAS to be life on other planets..

Your work can never be done.

For those who are purely literally believers in a literal bible and all it's stories, they can rest

That's a complement ding, because you are at least smart enough to know that they can't get away with it.

And so the Catholic church threw you a lifeline, saying that you can believe anything that works with your IQ.
What Is the Origin of Intelligence and Will?
 
I have only posted once in this thread but...

Anybody who thinks that this minuscule, smaller than a grain of sand planet Earth is the only place with

life in this INFINITE Cosmos...

Well....the arrogance.....that's all I can say.

The ignorance..... that's all.
Let's talk about "ignorance." Yours and the OP's.

On another thread I explained the mind-boggling impossibility of original synthesis of human proteins by any naturalistic, or mechanistic means.
The first proteins inside us HAD to be constructed from available simple compounds, as they could not be reproduced outside the first human as they are now inside all of us.
So titin is a protein in your muscles. It has 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. The a priori probability of picking the exactly correct amino acid out of 20 possible is 1/20. Raise that to the 38,138th power and you are only getting warmed up. But it's already indistinguishable from zero.
Then multiply that product by 1/2 to the 38,138th power for getting the L amino acid each time instead of the D (right handed). We're made up of L amino acids.

Finally multiply that near zero product by 1/2 to the 38,138th power to adjust for all peptide bonds instead of non-peptide bonds, which have roughly a 50/50 probability.

The result is 1 chance in ~10 to the 72,000th power. Precise figures are available on my other thread.
Emile Borel, a famous statistician, stated categorically that 1 chance in 10 to the 50th or less is IMPOSSIBLE. I explain that statistic in my other thread as well.

Here's the coup de Darwin. Humans have over 20,000 proteins and enzymes in our bodies, so you have lots more math to do to expose your ignorance of life elsewhere in the universe. This is science and statistics.

The statistics of "billions and billions of stars and planets" are continuously cited as "evidence" of life elsewhere. None of those provocateurs seem to realize that statistics work against them thousands of orders of magnitude more than they work FOR them.
Thousands of orders of magnitude. And there are only 80 orders of magnitude in the number of fundamental particles in our universe.
 
Last edited:
In fact you are arguing right now that life did not begin in the sea but on land.
False.

I am presenting factual information that shows life may have begun in shallow lakes.

Choose your words better. You embarrass yourself not to be able to follow simple English.

First lesson: "may have" also means "may not have"
 
Let's talk about "ignorance." Yours and the OP's.

On another thread I explained the mind-boggling impossibility of original synthesis of human proteins by any naturalistic, or mechanistic means.
The first proteins inside us HAD to be constructed from available simple compounds, as they could not be reproduced outside the first human as they are now inside all of us.
So titin is a protein in your muscles. It has 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. The a priori probability of picking the exactly correct amino acid out of 20 possible is 1/20. Raise that to the 38,138th power and you are only getting warmed up. But it's already indistinguishable from zero.
Then multiply that product by 1/2 to the 38,138th power for getting the L amino acid each time instead of the D (right handed). We're made up of L amino acids.

Finally multiply that near zero product by 1/2 to the 38,138th power to adjust for all peptide bonds instead of non-peptide bonds, which have roughly a 50/50 probability.

The result is 1 chance in ~10 to the 72,000th power. Precise figures are available on my other thread.
Emile Borel, a famous statistician, stated categorically that 1 chance in 10 to the 50th or less is IMPOSSIBLE. I explain that statistic in my other thread as well.

Here's the coup de Darwin. Humans have over 20,000 proteins and enzymes in our bodies, so you have lots more math to do to expose your ignorance of life elsewhere in the universe. This is science and statistics.

The statistics of "billions and billions of stars and planets" are continuously cited as "evidence" of life elsewhere. None of those provocateurs seem to realize that statistics work against them thousands of orders of magnitude more than they work FOR them.
Thousands of orders of magnitude. And there are only 80 orders of magnitude in the number of fundamental particles in our universe.

Somewhere across the universe, there are people on a message board arguing the improbability that life exists anywhere else…yet here we are..

Maybe WE are the “impossible odds” of life existing elsewhere. If it happened here, why is it so hard to believe it couldn’t have also happened elsewhere?
 
False.

I am presenting factual information that shows life may have begun in shallow lakes.

Choose your words better. You embarrass yourself not to be able to follow simple English.

First lesson: "may have" also means "may not have"
So life evolved on a lake, moved to land, then spread to the ocean and then back again on land?

Doesn’t that sound dumb when I say it?

Keep it simple stupid.
 
Somewhere across the universe, there are people on a message board arguing the improbability that life exists anywhere else…yet here we are..

Maybe WE are the “impossible odds” of life existing elsewhere. If it happened here, why is it so hard to believe it couldn’t have also happened elsewhere?

Why is it so hard for you to understand "impossible"? I explained it to you in terms I thought even a high school student could understand. Obviously, you do not want to understand.

"In the beginning, God made the heaven and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

God can easily accomplish what we humans consider "impossible."

That is why there is no other life outside our planet. It is "impossible."
 
So life evolved on a lake, moved to land, then spread to the ocean and then back again on land?
No, not necessarily. You see, water can be carried around by air. And microbes can be carried around by water. And floods and rivers can sometimes connect waterways. It's all very simple. But you are so rabid, you are making silly errors. This being the case, your immature behavior is really embarrassing you.
 
No, not necessarily. You see, water can be carried around by air. And microbes can be carried around by water. And floods and rivers can sometimes connect waterways. It's all very simple. But you are so rabid, you are making silly errors. This being the case, your immature behavior is really embarrassing you.
It's funny watching you contort your argument. Life began in the sea. Say it with me.
 
It's funny watching you contort your argument. Life began in the sea. Say it with me.
Or possibly it did not. Per the facts shown to you.

But I actually read links, so maybe I ask too much of you.

I will give you an email address of one of the scientists who published the study on shallow lakes. Email him with your limited education in and knowledge of his field of specialty, and tell him how stupid and wrong he is.


Please post the response here.

Deal?
 
Who says they look anything like humans? And what's to say they aren't MILLIONS of years more advanced than we are? If they do exist, we haven't found any proof.

I watched "how the universe works" and the entire episode was dedicated to this very question. Fascinating show.
 
Or possibly it did not. Per the facts shown to you.

But I actually read links, so maybe I ask too much of you.

I will give you an email address of one of the scientists who published the study on shallow lakes. Email him with your limited education in and knowledge of his field of specialty, and tell him how stupid and wrong he is.


Please post the response here.

Deal?
Hot wet conditions. Thermal vents on the sea floor. Life began in the sea and then moved to land.

They already know. Google is your friend.
 
Who says they look anything like humans? And what's to say they aren't MILLIONS of years more advanced than we are? If they do exist, we haven't found any proof.

I watched "how the universe works" and the entire episode was dedicated to this very question. Fascinating show.
Yes. BUT

They would have the same, general pressures to satisfy.

Locomotion and manipulation. A way to move across land and a way to manipulate their environment (like, our hands).

Our body plans didn't just form by chance. They also formed because of efficiency. That selective pressure would also be operating on alien life.

So it would no be the least surprising for them to hand two legs and two arms wth hands.

And two eyeballs facing forward for stereoscopic vision.

And two ears pointing sideways for stereo audio senses.

And some form of skeleton, to keep them from being a pile of goo.
 

Forum List

Back
Top