Waiting for Europa

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life

This article says a mission to Europa could happen as soon as June 2022. The mission would fly through the plumes that shoot out from its (believed) under-ice oceans for specific analysis, looking for any signs of microbial life.

Badass. If there is any kind of life there, it's over - life is everywhere in the universe.

I GOTTA WAIT FOUR-PLUS YEARS. GAH.
.

There is no life anywhere but here. And that, by all scientific evidence, created only one time.
Love the flyby though. We should eliminate social security, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and housing assistance and use the money to concentrate on missions like this to better the human race.

What makes you think that there is no life anywhere but here?
.

I’ve got my reasons. Not the least being the Fermi Paradox. Science, as well, is on my side on this. Try this recent thread.
The Origin of Life

Science is not on your side on this, sorry. You should probably stop saying that.

And the "Fermi paradox" is not a paradox at all. Life being prevalent in the universe does not necessitate that advanced civilizations capable of visiting EVERY planet in the universe have already existed. The Fermi paradox is a joke, not to be taken seriously.

 

[Flash]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point. Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.

 

[Votto]

Science is desperate to find life elsewhere,

What a bizarre thing to say. "Science" is desperate, eh? And what is....chivalry? Content?

What is astrology? Happy go lucky?

You're weird.

How would you explain life only being on earth?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point. Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.

I didn't say it was 100%, definitive proof. So you are arguing against points that have not been made by people who do not exist.

And your posture belies a preconception. I can smell it from here. You imply a false equivalence: all guesses are equal.

No, not all guesses are equal. Some are more informed and educated than are others.

Like I said: I made a strong argument for the occurrence of abiogenesis elsewhere. Feel free to counter the actual argument i made, whenever you are ready.

 

[Votto]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point. Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.

Statistics do matter, or is that no longer part of science?

In fact, the statistics for the material universe being the way it is, is also astoundingly improbable.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

 

[Votto]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point. Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.

I didn't say it was 100%, definitive proof. So you are arguing against points that have not been made by people who do not exist.

And your posture belies a preconception. I can smell it from here. You imply a false equivalence: all guesses are equal.

No, not all guesses are equal. Some are more informed and educated than are others.

Like I said: I made a strong argument for the occurrence of abiogenesis elsewhere. Feel free to counter the actual argument i made, whenever you are ready.

Abiogenesis?

Well then, follow the scientific method.

Experiment, observe, come to a conclusion.

Oh wait, that never works for abiogenesis.

Looks like you need a new field of study that does not include science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point. Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.

Statistics do matter, or is that no longer part of science?

In fact, the statistics for the material universe being the way it is, is also astoundingly improbable.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Wrong. Your entire implied argument is specious, and it is constructed on a fallcy commonly referred to as Hoyle's fallacy. These creationist propaganda sites know that the typical person is not equipped or trained to avoid being fooled by such fallacies.

By this fallacy, you can reduce the probability of any event to zero. So, using this fallacy, you can also argue that the formation of life is no more likely than the formation of any crystal, or rock. Both zero.

It's mathematically useless garbage.

 

[Mac1958]

Science admits it doesn't know stuff, but it's curious. There's so much to learn.

Being convinced that you have The Answer to The Question seems pretty egotistical to me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abiogenesis?

Well then, follow the scientific method.

Experiment, observe, come to a conclusion.

Which we have done and are still doing. Did you not know this?

Did you also not know that scientific determinism is assumed from the start, when performing science?

And did you not know that scientific determinism dictates that abiogenesis did, in fact, occur, without any help from your goofy magical spirits you imagine?

 

[Votto]

Abiogenesis?

Well then, follow the scientific method.

Experiment, observe, come to a conclusion.

Which we have done and are still doing. Did you not know this?

Did you also not know that scientific determinism is assumed from the start, when performing science?

And did you not know that scientific determinism dictates that abiogenesis did, in fact, occur, without any help from your goofy magical spirits you imagine?

So scientists have produced life in a lab?

Do tell.

 

[Votto]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point. Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.

Statistics do matter, or is that no longer part of science?

In fact, the statistics for the material universe being the way it is, is also astoundingly improbable.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Wrong. Your entire implied argument is specious, and it is constructed on a fallcy commonly referred to as Hoyle's fallacy. These creationist propaganda sites know that the typical person is not equipped or trained to avoid being fooled by such fallacies.

By this fallacy, you can reduce the probability of any event to zero. So, using this fallacy, you can also argue that the formation of life is no more likely than the formation of any crystal, or rock. Both zero.

It's mathematically useless garbage.

Statistics are useless, eh?

Vegas runs on statistics. Without it, they don't eat.

 

[Flash]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point. Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.

Statistics do matter, or is that no longer part of science?

In fact, the statistics for the material universe being the way it is, is also astoundingly improbable.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

For any statistic to be valid then you have to have more than one data point, wouldn't you agree?

What scientist would make an assumption based upon just one data point?

If we find life on Europa then that would be another data point. If we created life in the lab using primordial chemicals then that could be another data point. If we get visited by ET that would be another data point.

Right now we have nothing. We don't know if life is unique, rare or common, do we?

 

[Flash]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point. Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.

Statistics do matter, or is that no longer part of science?

In fact, the statistics for the material universe being the way it is, is also astoundingly improbable.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Wrong. Your entire implied argument is specious, and it is constructed on a fallcy commonly referred to as Hoyle's fallacy. These creationist propaganda sites know that the typical person is not equipped or trained to avoid being fooled by such fallacies.

By this fallacy, you can reduce the probability of any event to zero. So, using this fallacy, you can also argue that the formation of life is no more likely than the formation of any crystal, or rock. Both zero.

It's mathematically useless garbage.

Statistics are useless, eh?

Vegas runs on statistics. Without it, they don't eat.

The statistics they use in Vegas is based upon all kinds of data points. History, probability, sample size etc.

We only have one data point on life.

 

[DOTR]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Yes I can and I have given it to you. By all evidence it has only ever occurred once. And it occurred very early in Earths history. Much earlier than has been thought until these last few years.
And that is all science can say. It cant give odds because it doesn't know how it happened. We see one unique event. Go with that until you have reason to believe otherwise.
Europa doesn't have life. But I wish it did.

 

[Votto]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point. Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.

Statistics do matter, or is that no longer part of science?

In fact, the statistics for the material universe being the way it is, is also astoundingly improbable.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

For any statistic to be valid then you have to have more than one data point, wouldn't you agree?

What scientist would make an assumption based upon just one data point?

If we find life on Europa then that would be another data point. If we created life in the lab using primordial chemicals then that could be another data point. If we get visited by ET that would be another data point.

Right now we have nothing. We don't know if life is unique, rare or common, do we?

I would think trying to find life on a world and finding none would be a data point.

It is data. It is a point. I would think that the more worlds we find without life, especially ones with presumably favorable environments, the more statistically improbable that life just came about by a natural process.

 

[Votto]

Science has two main obstacles to explain.

The existence of matter and the existence of life.

It has yet to do so.

 

[Flash]

That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point. Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.

Statistics do matter, or is that no longer part of science?

In fact, the statistics for the material universe being the way it is, is also astoundingly improbable.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

For any statistic to be valid then you have to have more than one data point, wouldn't you agree?

What scientist would make an assumption based upon just one data point?

If we find life on Europa then that would be another data point. If we created life in the lab using primordial chemicals then that could be another data point. If we get visited by ET that would be another data point.

Right now we have nothing. We don't know if life is unique, rare or common, do we?

I would think trying to find life on a world and finding none would be a data point.

It is data. It is a point. I would think that the more worlds we find without life, especially ones with presumably favorable environments, the more statistically improbable that life just came about by a natural process.

Agree.

The fact is that until we do find another world with life or that we can indisputably create it in the lab then we are forced to assume that life is unique.

If our sample size is our solar system then I suspect there will be very low odds.

If our sample size would include more solar systems and we find no life then even more low odds.

I don't know any more than the anybody else but my best guess is that there is microbial life somewhere else. Advance life may be non existent.

Another thing to consider. In about 500 million years the sun will start expanding and it is going to get much hotter here. Maybe to the point where no life can exist. It will be that way for the next three to four billion of years before the earth is consumed by the expanding sun.

When you look at the 10 billion year life cycle of the earth life will have been here only about 15-20% of the time. That means even if we do find another earth there is a 80-85% chance we wouldn't find life.

 

[DOTR]

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?

If you know a deck of card has 4 suits then you can guess a random pull from the deck will give you a heart 25% of the time. For 10 pulls it might be 20% or 30% but in a million tries it will approach 25%.
If you *dont* know what is in the deck and find a heart 25% of the time then you can guess that hearts make up 25% of the deck.
The origin of life was an early pull. Extremely early...like the deck was stacked with origins. Then it never showed up again in billions of years so far as we know. I think that tells us the odds are it was the only one in the deck. You are engaging in wish fulfillment if you demand any other conclusion.

 

[Mac1958]

How would you explain life only being on earth?

How do we know life is only on Earth?

We can't even say that about our own solar system, let alone the other 70 to 100 billion trillion other solar systems.
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So scientists have produced life in a lab?

Since when do we ahere to this absurd standard you just invented?

Have scientists produced the core of a star in a lab? No. Nor do they need to do so,toninderstand that fusion most definitely happened in the core of a star.

My comments...and I think you know this, but decided to be cute... reffered to the fact that we have tested the conditions and mechanisms suspected to have occurred along the way of abiogenesis.

And, to the surprise of nobody, they all check out and are even easier than we thought.