Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet

[MarkDuffy]

LOL

I just went to the troll's link

Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute

The title

Our Galaxy Should Be Teeming With Civilizations, But Where Are They?

No no no!

Our galaxy is teeming with life. Intelligence, especially intelligence with bodies to use that intelligence to make Civilizations is extremely rare.

Remember folks, it is not just intelligence. The other great apes are intelligent. They do not have the body architecture to put that intelligence to work. Same with dolphins.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Now as for alien visitation, how long have we had to notice? Maybe a couple of hundred years? Before that, they would have been burned at the stake for being witches, or perhaps worshiped as God.

With as warlike as the human species appears to be, would you visit in plain sight, or hide?

How long did Jesus last once he came out of the closet?

 

[sealybobo]

Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.

The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion | Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine

Good point, but we're still stuck with the Fermi Paradox:
Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute
The remark came while Fermi was discussing with his mealtime mates the possibility that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. They thought it reasonable to assume that we have a lot of cosmic company. But somewhere between one sentence and the next, Fermi's supple brain realized that if this was true, it implied something profound. If there are really a lot of alien societies, then some of them might have spread out.

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

So what Fermi immediately realized was that the aliens have had more than enough time to pepper the Galaxy with their presence. But looking around, he didn't see any clear indication that they're out and about. This prompted Fermi to ask what was (to him) an obvious question: "where is everybody?"

This sounds a bit silly at first. The fact that aliens don't seem to be walking our planet apparently implies that there are no extraterrestrials anywhere among the vast tracts of the Galaxy. Many researchers consider this to be a radical conclusion to draw from such a simple observation. Surely there is a straightforward explanation for what has become known as the Fermi Paradox. There must be some way to account for our apparent loneliness in a galaxy that we assume is filled with other clever beings.

A lot of folks have given this thought. The first thing they note is that the Fermi Paradox is a remarkably strong argument. You can quibble about the speed of alien spacecraft, and whether they can move at 1 percent of the speed of light or 10 percent of the speed of light. It doesn't matter. You can argue about how long it would take for a new star colony to spawn colonies of its own. It still doesn't matter. Any halfway reasonable assumption about how fast colonization could take place still ends up with time scales that are profoundly shorter than the age of the Galaxy. It's like having a heated discussion about whether Spanish ships of the 16th century could heave along at two knots or twenty. Either way they could speedily colonize the Americas.

Consequently, scientists in and out of the SETI community have conjured up other arguments to deal with the conflict between the idea that aliens should be everywhere and our failure (so far) to find them. In the 1980s, dozens of papers were published to address the Fermi Paradox. They considered technical and sociological arguments for why the aliens weren't hanging out nearby. Some even insisted that there was no paradox at all: the reason we don't see evidence of extraterrestrials is because there aren't any.

There are lots of arguments that contradict this argument. They could have visited billions of years ago when trilobites ruled.

Maybe they did seed our planet. We don't know how life got started.

Maybe they are watching us and we don't know it.

Maybe the pharohs and kings were aliens who breed us into humans from monkeys?

No one knows but religion claims to know all the answers. Not buying it.

Yes, lots of arguments, not a shred of evidence. Why?

People who claim their religion is "the true religion" are fooling themselves. Religion is a path to spiritual enlightenment much like a martial art is a path to self-defense. To say only one is the correct one and all others are false is to totally misunderstand the point.

Because it's too far away for our puny brains to find or see.

Because instead of a space race we are in an arms race and war with another religion.

Why? Because we are primitive and new.

We are getting there. Be patient. We would never find out if all humans were as negative as you. Luckily we have smart ones who are positive

 

[Divine Wind]

I see the Religionists ignored my questions.

Happens every time

Religionists? Who are those? Why did you ignore my reply?

 

[Divine Wind]

LOL

I just went to the troll's link

Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute...

Ahhh, once again the name-calling comes out whenever Mark lacks intellectual responses. Sad.

 

[Divine Wind]

Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.

The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion | Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine

Good point, but we're still stuck with the Fermi Paradox:
Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute
The remark came while Fermi was discussing with his mealtime mates the possibility that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. They thought it reasonable to assume that we have a lot of cosmic company. But somewhere between one sentence and the next, Fermi's supple brain realized that if this was true, it implied something profound. If there are really a lot of alien societies, then some of them might have spread out.

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

So what Fermi immediately realized was that the aliens have had more than enough time to pepper the Galaxy with their presence. But looking around, he didn't see any clear indication that they're out and about. This prompted Fermi to ask what was (to him) an obvious question: "where is everybody?"

This sounds a bit silly at first. The fact that aliens don't seem to be walking our planet apparently implies that there are no extraterrestrials anywhere among the vast tracts of the Galaxy. Many researchers consider this to be a radical conclusion to draw from such a simple observation. Surely there is a straightforward explanation for what has become known as the Fermi Paradox. There must be some way to account for our apparent loneliness in a galaxy that we assume is filled with other clever beings.

A lot of folks have given this thought. The first thing they note is that the Fermi Paradox is a remarkably strong argument. You can quibble about the speed of alien spacecraft, and whether they can move at 1 percent of the speed of light or 10 percent of the speed of light. It doesn't matter. You can argue about how long it would take for a new star colony to spawn colonies of its own. It still doesn't matter. Any halfway reasonable assumption about how fast colonization could take place still ends up with time scales that are profoundly shorter than the age of the Galaxy. It's like having a heated discussion about whether Spanish ships of the 16th century could heave along at two knots or twenty. Either way they could speedily colonize the Americas.

Consequently, scientists in and out of the SETI community have conjured up other arguments to deal with the conflict between the idea that aliens should be everywhere and our failure (so far) to find them. In the 1980s, dozens of papers were published to address the Fermi Paradox. They considered technical and sociological arguments for why the aliens weren't hanging out nearby. Some even insisted that there was no paradox at all: the reason we don't see evidence of extraterrestrials is because there aren't any.

There are lots of arguments that contradict this argument. They could have visited billions of years ago when trilobites ruled.

Maybe they did seed our planet. We don't know how life got started.

Maybe they are watching us and we don't know it.

Maybe the pharohs and kings were aliens who breed us into humans from monkeys?

No one knows but religion claims to know all the answers. Not buying it.

Yes, lots of arguments, not a shred of evidence. Why?

People who claim their religion is "the true religion" are fooling themselves. Religion is a path to spiritual enlightenment much like a martial art is a path to self-defense. To say only one is the correct one and all others are false is to totally misunderstand the point.

Because it's too far away for our puny brains to find or see.

Because instead of a space race we are in an arms race and war with another religion.

Why? Because we are primitive and new.

We are getting there. Be patient. We would never find out if all humans were as negative as you. Luckily we have smart ones who are positive

While the human race would, indeed, be better off focusing on exploration than war, the fact remains human nature is still very primitive, tribal and competitive.

 

[sealybobo]

I see the Religionists ignored my questions.

Happens every time

Religionists? Who are those? Why did you ignore my reply?

It dawned on me this morning coming into work. Ok, so basically religious people think that life happening on earth was "a miracle". And it sure does seem like one doesn't it? I mean, for the earth to be in the right place/distance from the sun and how the moon helps life happen and then if the meteor didn't hit dinosaurs would still rule. So I see why religous people think we are alone and that it's highly unlikely that all these things happened by chance, or without some divine help. But take into account that for billions of years earth was not friendly to life. It took a long time for conditions to be right. And someday life will stop existing on this planet. So it makes sense that eventually, around every star, life will eventually happen.

And it may be happening more than just here on earth. Europa may have life in it.

I think this is why religous people don't want to find life anywhere else. They want to think we are all their is. Because that would help confirm that we are special.

But also notice that even if we found other life, that wouldn't stop believers from believing. So I don't even think even you guys understand why you don't want there to be life elsewhere. It goes against the thinking that you are special and that it was a miracle. It's not a miracle. It's a scientifically explainable thing. We just don't know how life got started.

And yes, when a star explodes it spews out life. Did I use the word microbe? Clearly I'm not a scientist. Maybe it was a fungus or protein or amino acid or bacteria. Point is, life spews out of stars and that's where life on earth came from. This makes a lot more sense than thinking god waved his wand and land creatures appeared. And it's crazy that I'm not joking. You guys literally believe that a god willed/wished it and then land creatures, birds, reptiles, fish, mammals all magically appeared. Seriously? This is your "theory"?

 

[sealybobo]

Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.

The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion | Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine

Good point, but we're still stuck with the Fermi Paradox:
Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute
The remark came while Fermi was discussing with his mealtime mates the possibility that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. They thought it reasonable to assume that we have a lot of cosmic company. But somewhere between one sentence and the next, Fermi's supple brain realized that if this was true, it implied something profound. If there are really a lot of alien societies, then some of them might have spread out.

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

So what Fermi immediately realized was that the aliens have had more than enough time to pepper the Galaxy with their presence. But looking around, he didn't see any clear indication that they're out and about. This prompted Fermi to ask what was (to him) an obvious question: "where is everybody?"

This sounds a bit silly at first. The fact that aliens don't seem to be walking our planet apparently implies that there are no extraterrestrials anywhere among the vast tracts of the Galaxy. Many researchers consider this to be a radical conclusion to draw from such a simple observation. Surely there is a straightforward explanation for what has become known as the Fermi Paradox. There must be some way to account for our apparent loneliness in a galaxy that we assume is filled with other clever beings.

A lot of folks have given this thought. The first thing they note is that the Fermi Paradox is a remarkably strong argument. You can quibble about the speed of alien spacecraft, and whether they can move at 1 percent of the speed of light or 10 percent of the speed of light. It doesn't matter. You can argue about how long it would take for a new star colony to spawn colonies of its own. It still doesn't matter. Any halfway reasonable assumption about how fast colonization could take place still ends up with time scales that are profoundly shorter than the age of the Galaxy. It's like having a heated discussion about whether Spanish ships of the 16th century could heave along at two knots or twenty. Either way they could speedily colonize the Americas.

Consequently, scientists in and out of the SETI community have conjured up other arguments to deal with the conflict between the idea that aliens should be everywhere and our failure (so far) to find them. In the 1980s, dozens of papers were published to address the Fermi Paradox. They considered technical and sociological arguments for why the aliens weren't hanging out nearby. Some even insisted that there was no paradox at all: the reason we don't see evidence of extraterrestrials is because there aren't any.

There are lots of arguments that contradict this argument. They could have visited billions of years ago when trilobites ruled.

Maybe they did seed our planet. We don't know how life got started.

Maybe they are watching us and we don't know it.

Maybe the pharohs and kings were aliens who breed us into humans from monkeys?

No one knows but religion claims to know all the answers. Not buying it.

Yes, lots of arguments, not a shred of evidence. Why?

People who claim their religion is "the true religion" are fooling themselves. Religion is a path to spiritual enlightenment much like a martial art is a path to self-defense. To say only one is the correct one and all others are false is to totally misunderstand the point.

Because it's too far away for our puny brains to find or see.

Because instead of a space race we are in an arms race and war with another religion.

Why? Because we are primitive and new.

We are getting there. Be patient. We would never find out if all humans were as negative as you. Luckily we have smart ones who are positive

While the human race would, indeed, be better off focusing on exploration than war, the fact remains human nature is still very primitive, tribal and competitive.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out.

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” – Douglas Adams

 

[fncceo]

when a star explodes it spews out life.

Life that can withstand a supernova explosion?

Have you thought this through?

Stellar explosions create heavy elements, which are required for life. But, not life itself.

The combination of elements to create life requires a slightly more tranquil environment.

 

[sealybobo]

when a star explodes it spews out life.

Life that can withstand a supernova explosion?

Have you thought this through?

Stellar explosions create heavy elements, which are required for life. But, not life itself.

The combination of elements to create life requires a slightly more tranquil environment.

He says I'm right.

 

[miketx]

when a star explodes it spews out life.

Life that can withstand a supernova explosion?

Have you thought this through?

Stellar explosions create heavy elements, which are required for life. But, not life itself.

The combination of elements to create life requires a slightly more tranquil environment.

And liberals say conservatives don't understand science. If the Earths sun went nova right now, we would cease to exist in about 8 minutes. Probably take out Mars and the asteroid belt as well and maybe Jupiter. Might be good for Saturns moons to warm up though....

 

[fncceo]

when a star explodes it spews out life.

Life that can withstand a supernova explosion?

Have you thought this through?

Stellar explosions create heavy elements, which are required for life. But, not life itself.

The combination of elements to create life requires a slightly more tranquil environment.

He says I'm right.

You're misunderstanding him. Our constituent elements are made of star stuff. Not organic life.

 

[Divine Wind]

Good point, but we're still stuck with the Fermi Paradox:
Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute
The remark came while Fermi was discussing with his mealtime mates the possibility that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. They thought it reasonable to assume that we have a lot of cosmic company. But somewhere between one sentence and the next, Fermi's supple brain realized that if this was true, it implied something profound. If there are really a lot of alien societies, then some of them might have spread out.

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

So what Fermi immediately realized was that the aliens have had more than enough time to pepper the Galaxy with their presence. But looking around, he didn't see any clear indication that they're out and about. This prompted Fermi to ask what was (to him) an obvious question: "where is everybody?"

This sounds a bit silly at first. The fact that aliens don't seem to be walking our planet apparently implies that there are no extraterrestrials anywhere among the vast tracts of the Galaxy. Many researchers consider this to be a radical conclusion to draw from such a simple observation. Surely there is a straightforward explanation for what has become known as the Fermi Paradox. There must be some way to account for our apparent loneliness in a galaxy that we assume is filled with other clever beings.

A lot of folks have given this thought. The first thing they note is that the Fermi Paradox is a remarkably strong argument. You can quibble about the speed of alien spacecraft, and whether they can move at 1 percent of the speed of light or 10 percent of the speed of light. It doesn't matter. You can argue about how long it would take for a new star colony to spawn colonies of its own. It still doesn't matter. Any halfway reasonable assumption about how fast colonization could take place still ends up with time scales that are profoundly shorter than the age of the Galaxy. It's like having a heated discussion about whether Spanish ships of the 16th century could heave along at two knots or twenty. Either way they could speedily colonize the Americas.

Consequently, scientists in and out of the SETI community have conjured up other arguments to deal with the conflict between the idea that aliens should be everywhere and our failure (so far) to find them. In the 1980s, dozens of papers were published to address the Fermi Paradox. They considered technical and sociological arguments for why the aliens weren't hanging out nearby. Some even insisted that there was no paradox at all: the reason we don't see evidence of extraterrestrials is because there aren't any.

There are lots of arguments that contradict this argument. They could have visited billions of years ago when trilobites ruled.

Maybe they did seed our planet. We don't know how life got started.

Maybe they are watching us and we don't know it.

Maybe the pharohs and kings were aliens who breed us into humans from monkeys?

No one knows but religion claims to know all the answers. Not buying it.

Yes, lots of arguments, not a shred of evidence. Why?

People who claim their religion is "the true religion" are fooling themselves. Religion is a path to spiritual enlightenment much like a martial art is a path to self-defense. To say only one is the correct one and all others are false is to totally misunderstand the point.

Because it's too far away for our puny brains to find or see.

Because instead of a space race we are in an arms race and war with another religion.

Why? Because we are primitive and new.

We are getting there. Be patient. We would never find out if all humans were as negative as you. Luckily we have smart ones who are positive

While the human race would, indeed, be better off focusing on exploration than war, the fact remains human nature is still very primitive, tribal and competitive.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out.

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” – Douglas Adams

Scientifically, there is no evidence of other life forms. That's all it means.

While we can extrapolate the idea that if it happened once, it can happen again, the fact we've found no signs of other civilizations, much less any signs of extraterrestrial life, is a very curious issue. Perhaps we're missing something.

 

[miketx]

There are lots of arguments that contradict this argument. They could have visited billions of years ago when trilobites ruled.

Maybe they did seed our planet. We don't know how life got started.

Maybe they are watching us and we don't know it.

Maybe the pharohs and kings were aliens who breed us into humans from monkeys?

No one knows but religion claims to know all the answers. Not buying it.

Yes, lots of arguments, not a shred of evidence. Why?

People who claim their religion is "the true religion" are fooling themselves. Religion is a path to spiritual enlightenment much like a martial art is a path to self-defense. To say only one is the correct one and all others are false is to totally misunderstand the point.

Because it's too far away for our puny brains to find or see.

Because instead of a space race we are in an arms race and war with another religion.

Why? Because we are primitive and new.

We are getting there. Be patient. We would never find out if all humans were as negative as you. Luckily we have smart ones who are positive

While the human race would, indeed, be better off focusing on exploration than war, the fact remains human nature is still very primitive, tribal and competitive.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out.

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” – Douglas Adams

Scientifically, there is no evidence of other life forms. That's all it means.

While we can extrapolate the idea that if it happened once, it can happen again, the fact we've found no signs of other civilizations, much less any signs of extraterrestrial life, is a very curious issue. Perhaps we're missing something.

They are too far away, and cannot communicate with us due the the limitation of the speed of light. That, or they have somehow discovered us and said, Hell no!

 

[Divine Wind]

I see the Religionists ignored my questions.

Happens every time

Religionists? Who are those? Why did you ignore my reply?

It dawned on me this morning coming into work. Ok, so basically religious people think that life happening on earth was "a miracle". And it sure does seem like one doesn't it? I mean, for the earth to be in the right place/distance from the sun and how the moon helps life happen and then if the meteor didn't hit dinosaurs would still rule. So I see why religous people think we are alone and that it's highly unlikely that all these things happened by chance, or without some divine help. But take into account that for billions of years earth was not friendly to life. It took a long time for conditions to be right. And someday life will stop existing on this planet. So it makes sense that eventually, around every star, life will eventually happen.

And it may be happening more than just here on earth. Europa may have life in it.

I think this is why religous people don't want to find life anywhere else. They want to think we are all their is. Because that would help confirm that we are special.

But also notice that even if we found other life, that wouldn't stop believers from believing. So I don't even think even you guys understand why you don't want there to be life elsewhere. It goes against the thinking that you are special and that it was a miracle. It's not a miracle. It's a scientifically explainable thing. We just don't know how life got started.

And yes, when a star explodes it spews out life. Did I use the word microbe? Clearly I'm not a scientist. Maybe it was a fungus or protein or amino acid or bacteria. Point is, life spews out of stars and that's where life on earth came from. This makes a lot more sense than thinking god waved his wand and land creatures appeared. And it's crazy that I'm not joking. You guys literally believe that a god willed/wished it and then land creatures, birds, reptiles, fish, mammals all magically appeared. Seriously? This is your "theory"?

"religious people" are not a homogeneous group. Beliefs vary in both content and degree. Among Protestants alone, their beliefs can vary from "creationists" to a belief that God created the Big Bang and let it go at that.

Through fusion, stars create heavier elements, but not "microbes" or life.

 

[sealybobo]

when a star explodes it spews out life.

Life that can withstand a supernova explosion?

Have you thought this through?

Stellar explosions create heavy elements, which are required for life. But, not life itself.

The combination of elements to create life requires a slightly more tranquil environment.

He says I'm right.

You're misunderstanding him. Our constituent elements are made of star stuff. Not organic life.

So we don't know yet?

Abiogenesis or informally, the origin of life,is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Abiogenesis is studied through a combination of paleontology, laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the characteristics of modern organisms, and aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life on Earth.

One day we will know.

Or do you claim to already know how life got started?

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

 

[sealybobo]

How did life begin? There can hardly be a bigger question. For much of human history, almost everyone believed some version of "the gods did it". Any other explanation was inconceivable.

That is no longer true. Over the last century, a few scientists have tried to figure out how the first life might have sprung up. They have even tried to recreate this Genesis moment in their labs: to create brand-new life from scratch.

So far nobody has managed it, but we have come a long way. Today, many of the scientists studying the origin of life are confident that they are on the right track – and they have the experiments to back up their confidence.

This is the story of our quest to discover our ultimate origin. It is a story of obsession, struggle and brilliant creativity, which encompasses some of the greatest discoveries of modern science. The endeavour to understand life's beginnings has sent men and women to the furthest corners of our planet. Some of the scientists involved have been bedevilled as monsters, while others had to do their work under the heel of brutal totalitarian governments.

This is the story of the birth of life on Earth.

The secret of how life on Earth began

 

[fncceo]

when a star explodes it spews out life.

Life that can withstand a supernova explosion?

Have you thought this through?

Stellar explosions create heavy elements, which are required for life. But, not life itself.

The combination of elements to create life requires a slightly more tranquil environment.

He says I'm right.

You're misunderstanding him. Our constituent elements are made of star stuff. Not organic life.

So we don't know yet?

Abiogenesis or informally, the origin of life,is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Abiogenesis is studied through a combination of paleontology, laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the characteristics of modern organisms, and aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life on Earth.

One day we will know.

Or do you claim to already know how life got started?

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Urey-Miller experiment. Organic molecules can be created from inorganic compounds present in primitive atmospheres.

This experiment has been replicated thousands of times in labs around the world.

 

[sealybobo]

If we assume that life formed on Earth – which seems reasonable, given that we have not yet found it anywhere else – then it must have done so in the billion years between Earth coming into being and the preservation of the oldest known fossils.

As well as narrowing down when life began, we can make an educated guess at what it was.

Since the 19th Century, biologists have known that all living things are made of "cells": tiny bags of living matter that come in different shapes and sizes. Cells were first discovered in the 17th Century, when the first modern microscopes were invented, but it took well over a century for anyone to realise that they were the basis of all life.

You might not think you look much like a catfish or a Tyrannosaurus rex, but a microscope will reveal that you are all made of pretty similar kinds of cells. So are plants and fungi.

But by far the most numerous forms of life are microorganisms, each of which is made up of just one cell. Bacteria are the most famous group, and they are found everywhere on Earth.

This means we can define the problem of the origin of life more precisely. Using only the materials and conditions found on the Earth over 3.5 billion years ago, we have to make a cell.

For most of history, it was not really considered necessary to ask how life began, because the answer seemed obvious. God did it. Before the 1800s, most people believed in "vitalism". This is the intuitive idea that living things were endowed with a special, magical property that made them different from inanimate objects.

Vitalism was often bound up with cherished religious beliefs. The Bible says that God used "the breath of life" to animate the first humans, and the immortal soul is a form of vitalism.

There is just one problem. Vitalism is plain wrong.

 

[sealybobo]

By the early 1800s, scientists had discovered several substances that seemed to be unique to life. One such chemical was urea, which is found in urine and was isolated in 1799.

This was still, just, compatible with vitalism. Only living things seemed to be able to make these chemicals, so perhaps they were infused with life energy and that was what made them special.

But in 1828, the German chemist Friedrich Wöhler found a way to make urea from a common chemical called ammonium cyanate, which had no obvious connection with living things. Others followed in his footsteps, and it was soon clear that the chemicals of life can all be made from simpler chemicals that have nothing to do with life.

This was the end of vitalism as a scientific concept. But people found it profoundly hard to let go of the idea. For many, saying that there is nothing "special" about the chemicals of life seemed to rob life of its magic, to reduce us to mere machines. It also, of course, contradicted the Bible.

Still, after 1828 scientists had legitimate reasons to look for a deity-free explanation for how the first life formed. But they did not. It seems like an obvious subject to explore, but in fact the mystery of life's origin was ignored for decades. Perhaps everyone was still too emotionally attached to vitalism to take the next step.

vi·tal·ism
ˈvīdlˌizəm/
noun

1. the belief that the origin and phenomena of life are dependent on a force or principle distinct from purely chemical or physical forces.