Found space object proves we are not alone

[ReinyDays]

You're changing the subject from fine tuning. I'll accept that as conceding defeat as the scientific method shows no abiogenesis. Furthermore, creationists know God created natural selection.

As for the vascular plants, can you explain which came first vascular or non-vascular? Can you change one into the other, i.e. demonstrate? Please explain the sexual reproduction and how that came to be.

Sure ... do we agree that two methane molecules can combine into an ethane molecule ... or do I have to explain to you why carbon is common in the universe? ...

 

[abu afak]

You're changing the subject from fine tuning. I'll accept that as conceding defeat as the scientific method shows no abiogenesis. Furthermore, creationists know God created natural selection.

What Delusional and/or DISHONEST reasoning.
No scientific method for abiogenesis.... YET
NO scientific method for god/s, and in fact Tens of thousands of Them (and counting) have been explained away by science.
IOW, just another God of the gaps.
YAWN.

One has to have the same standards for claims/reality.

god is/gods are still a Conspiracy theory/fable with thousands of them imagined/claimed.


`

 

[ding]

You're changing the subject from fine tuning. I'll accept that as conceding defeat as the scientific method shows no abiogenesis. Furthermore, creationists know God created natural selection.

As for the vascular plants, can you explain which came first vascular or non-vascular? Can you change one into the other, i.e. demonstrate? Please explain the sexual reproduction and how that came to be.

Sure ... do we agree that two methane molecules can combine into an ethane molecule ... or do I have to explain to you why carbon is common in the universe? ...

I will agree. I love methane and ethane.

But I really struggle with life being created from inanimate matter. It seems a stretch that throwing long chains of organic matter in a soup would produce life capable of replicating itself. Too many folding instructions to be able to randomly produce the sequence that creates self replicating life. Unless of course this was a natural disposition of inanimate matter which doesn't seem to be the case. Enlighten me please. I am always open to learning new things.

 

[ding]

You're changing the subject from fine tuning. I'll accept that as conceding defeat as the scientific method shows no abiogenesis. Furthermore, creationists know God created natural selection.

What Delusional and/or DISHONEST reasoning.
No scientific method for abiogenesis.... YET
NO scientific method for god/s, and in fact Tens of thousands of Them (and counting) have been explained away by science.
IOW, just another God of the gaps.
YAWN.

One has to have the same standards for claims/reality.

god is/gods are still a Conspiracy theory/fable with thousands of them imagined/claimed.


`

It's not as much that there is no scientific method for abiogenesis as much as there is no real understanding of the process in which long chains of organic matter could fold themselves in exactly the right way and sequence so as to create a self replicating living organism. In fact, if the premise is that it was random chance there will never be a scientific method for abiogenesis other than blind luck.

Given the incredible complexity and potential for living organisms it's hard to accept that this incredible complexity and potential relies on blind luck to get started.

As for your silly ass assertion that there should be a way to scientifically prove a creator which by definition would need to be something beyond energy and matter, you shouldn't be expecting that. That's just stupid. With that said there are other ways to prove the existence of God. You are just so certain there is no God that you have never seriously explored any of them.

Lastly it is closed minded people like you that makes me glad for Darwinian evolution. Please darwinize your dumb ass out of existence at your earliest possible convenience. You have more value as spare parts.

 

[ReinyDays]

I will agree. I love methane and ethane.

But I really struggle with life being created from inanimate matter. It seems a stretch that throwing long chains of organic matter in a soup would produce life capable of replicating itself. Too many folding instructions to be able to randomly produce the sequence that creates self replicating life. Unless of course this was a natural disposition of inanimate matter which doesn't seem to be the case. Enlighten me please. I am always open to learning new things.

Well ... there's your first step in abiogenesis ... CH4 + CH4 --> C2H6 + H2 ... ethane is stable in the absence of O2 ... and in our cosmic time scale, this reaction will occur about as close to instantaneously as to make no difference ... now include NH3 in our mix and permute away ... in an extremely short time period, say 10,000 years, our oceans are going to be full of glycine and a myriad of other organic molecules ... string them carbon atoms out, plenty of oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, potassium, hydrogen and all the other elements required for life to make an amazing variety of chemicals ... plus we have huge amounts of reduced iron that quickly eats up any loose O2 ... the only restriction seems to be having an abundance of water in it's liquid state ...

These permutations continue increasing the variety exponentially ... eventually, we'll be forming enzymes ... that's when this statistical trickery ends and we've set in stone the production of the catalyzed products ... forevermore ... building block upon building block until inevitably we build simple cellular life ... yes, this takes time, a lot of time ... but time is something we have in excess ... millions of years is nothing compared to the age of the Earth ...

It doesn't matter how small the odds are of forming an enzyme in any given year ... the odds of forming just one enzyme approaches certainty given enough years ... once the enzyme forms, it never goes away filling the world's oceans with it's product in short order ... thus the basic assumption of evolution: once is enough ...

 

[ding]

I will agree. I love methane and ethane.

But I really struggle with life being created from inanimate matter. It seems a stretch that throwing long chains of organic matter in a soup would produce life capable of replicating itself. Too many folding instructions to be able to randomly produce the sequence that creates self replicating life. Unless of course this was a natural disposition of inanimate matter which doesn't seem to be the case. Enlighten me please. I am always open to learning new things.

Well ... there's your first step in abiogenesis ... CH4 + CH4 --> C2H6 + H2 ... ethane is stable in the absence of O2 ... and in our cosmic time scale, this reaction will occur about as close to instantaneously as to make no difference ... now include NH3 in our mix and permute away ... in an extremely short time period, say 10,000 years, our oceans are going to be full of glycine and a myriad of other organic molecules ... string them carbon atoms out, plenty of oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, potassium, hydrogen and all the other elements required for life to make an amazing variety of chemicals ... plus we have huge amounts of reduced iron that quickly eats up any loose O2 ... the only restriction seems to be having an abundance of water in it's liquid state ...

These permutations continue increasing the variety exponentially ... eventually, we'll be forming enzymes ... that's when this statistical trickery ends and we've set in stone the production of the catalyzed products ... forevermore ... building block upon building block until inevitably we build simple cellular life ... yes, this takes time, a lot of time ... but time is something we have in excess ... millions of years is nothing compared to the age of the Earth ...

It doesn't matter how small the odds are of forming an enzyme in any given year ... the odds of forming just one enzyme approaches certainty given enough years ... once the enzyme forms, it never goes away filling the world's oceans with it's product in short order ... thus the basic assumption of evolution: once is enough ...

Thanks. Can you explain how they folded themselves in the correct sequence? That is part of the process, right?

 

[ReinyDays]

Thanks. Can you explain how they folded themselves in the correct sequence? That is part of the process, right?

All sequences would occur ... both folded and unfolded ... that's not an intrinsic property of enzymes ...

 

[ding]

Thanks. Can you explain how they folded themselves in the correct sequence? That is part of the process, right?

All sequences would occur ... both folded and unfolded ... that's not an intrinsic property of enzymes ...

Right. Seems like an incredibly amazing number of things that would have to occur in just right sequence for long chains of organic matter - that were in the correct order - to mimic proteins/amino acids to actually make the leap to life without any instructions to control the process.

 

[james bond]

You're mistaken, as usual. Religion does not ''seek out the truth''. Religion seeks to support its own biases and preconceptions. That's why your ID'iot creationer ministries have a ''statement of faith'' that requires your ''pwoofs'' to be consistent with the brand of religious dogma.

I heard that you read a book of mazes and then got lost in it.

Instead of cutting and pasting your usual cartoons, why not make an attempt to support your argument?

Nothing to argue. What the OP found turned out to be an interesting shaped asteroid.

Now, what was this?

 

[james bond]

You're changing the subject from fine tuning. I'll accept that as conceding defeat as the scientific method shows no abiogenesis. Furthermore, creationists know God created natural selection.

As for the vascular plants, can you explain which came first vascular or non-vascular? Can you change one into the other, i.e. demonstrate? Please explain the sexual reproduction and how that came to be.

Sure ... do we agree that two methane molecules can combine into an ethane molecule ... or do I have to explain to you why carbon is common in the universe? ...

C'mon, we know there is plenty of carbon in the universe. Do you know why carbon is considered a building block for life? It doesn't create life, but is a necessary building block for life. Where were you going with this?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Found space object proves we are not alone

Humans have been sending out “probes” into our solar system and beyond in efforts to detect far off planets and other objects within our solar system, but it was never contemplated that we would see a “probe” that did not come from our planet; that is, until now.

We are not the only ones looking and listening.

This probe came from an alien planet and it may not be the only probe out there. When a probe is sent into the cosmos the signals sent from the probe back to its own world gets weaker the further away it travels. To maintain the signal, it is reasonable to believe subsequent probes were sent to follow the first one creating a chain of probes transmitting the images back to the probe behind it. The following probe that in turn relays these signals to the following probe. This chain communication guaranties a continual scan of the cosmos in its path.

Interstellar object may have been alien probe, Harvard paper argues, but experts are skeptical

By Steve George and Ashley Strickland, CNN
Updated 1:43 PM EST, Tue November 6, 2018
CNN) —

A mysterious cigar-shaped object spotted tumbling through our solar system last year may have been an alien spacecraft sent to investigate Earth, astronomers from Harvard University have suggested.

The object, nicknamed ‘Oumuamua, meaning “a messenger that reaches out from the distant past” in Hawaiian, was discovered in October 2017 by the Pan-STARRS 1 telescope in Hawaii.

Since its discovery, scientists have been at odds to explain its unusual features and precise origins, with researchers first calling it a comet and then an asteroid before finally deeming it the first of its kind: a new class of “interstellar objects.”

A new paper by researchers at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics raises the possibility that the elongated dark-red object, which is 10 times as long as it is wide and traveling at speeds of 196,000 mph, might have an “artificial origin.”

Interstellar object may have been alien probe, Harvard paper argues, but experts are skeptical

NASA SOLOR SYSTEM EXPLORATION

The first known interstellar object to visit our solar system, 1I/2017 U1 ‘Oumuamua, was discovered Oct. 19, 2017 by the University of Hawaii’s Pan-STARRS1 telescope, funded by NASA’s Near-Earth Object Observations (NEOO) Program, which finds and tracks asteroids and comets in Earth’s neighborhood. While originally classified as a comet, observations revealed no signs of cometary activity after it slingshotted past the Sun on Sept. 9, 2017 at a blistering speed of 196,000 miles per hour (87.3 kilometers per second). It was briefly classified as an asteroid until new measurements found it was accelerating slightly, a sign it behaves more like a comet.
In Depth | Oumuamua – NASA Solar System Exploration

Images of object
cigar shaped asteroid - Google Search
View attachment 447051

-

Maybe = maybe not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right. Seems like an incredibly amazing number of things that would have to occur in just right sequence for long chains of organic matter - that were in the correct order - to mimic proteins/amino acids to actually make the leap to life without any instructions to control the process.

Well that's the limitations of your human brain fooling you.

 

[ReinyDays]

Right. Seems like an incredibly amazing number of things that would have to occur in just right sequence for long chains of organic matter - that were in the correct order - to mimic proteins/amino acids to actually make the leap to life without any instructions to control the process.

On human scales, I agree it's an amazing number of things ... but consider there's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules in a single drop ... that's around the number of drops in all our oceans ... 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in total ... all vibrating and crashing into each other thousands of times a second for 500,000,000 years ... there's nothing within human experience with these types of numbers, nothing anywhere close ... except astronomy, thus the epitaph "astronomical numbers" ...

ALL sequences for long chain organic molecules form ... in every order ... including the "right" ones picked by natural selection ... without O2, they're pretty much all stable ... I'm sorry, trial-and-error works ... it takes a lot of time, but time is something we have plenty of ... the basic elements are common ...

c.f. Wald, George; The Origin of Life; Scientific American; August 1954

 

[ding]

Right. Seems like an incredibly amazing number of things that would have to occur in just right sequence for long chains of organic matter - that were in the correct order - to mimic proteins/amino acids to actually make the leap to life without any instructions to control the process.

On human scales, I agree it's an amazing number of things ... but consider there's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules in a single drop ... that's around the number of drops in all our oceans ... 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in total ... all vibrating and crashing into each other thousands of times a second for 500,000,000 years ... there's nothing within human experience with these types of numbers, nothing anywhere close ... except astronomy, thus the epitaph "astronomical numbers" ...

ALL sequences for long chain organic molecules form ... in every order ... including the "right" ones picked by natural selection ... without O2, they're pretty much all stable ... I'm sorry, trial-and-error works ... it takes a lot of time, but time is something we have plenty of ... the basic elements are common ...

c.f. Wald, George; The Origin of Life; Scientific American; August 1954

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.”

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result. I believe in spontaneous generation.”

Wald, George (1954). The origin of life. Scientific American, 190, No. 2, 44-53.

 

[ding]

Right. Seems like an incredibly amazing number of things that would have to occur in just right sequence for long chains of organic matter - that were in the correct order - to mimic proteins/amino acids to actually make the leap to life without any instructions to control the process.

On human scales, I agree it's an amazing number of things ... but consider there's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 water molecules in a single drop ... that's around the number of drops in all our oceans ... 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in total ... all vibrating and crashing into each other thousands of times a second for 500,000,000 years ... there's nothing within human experience with these types of numbers, nothing anywhere close ... except astronomy, thus the epitaph "astronomical numbers" ...

ALL sequences for long chain organic molecules form ... in every order ... including the "right" ones picked by natural selection ... without O2, they're pretty much all stable ... I'm sorry, trial-and-error works ... it takes a lot of time, but time is something we have plenty of ... the basic elements are common ...

c.f. Wald, George; The Origin of Life; Scientific American; August 1954

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.”

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result. I believe in spontaneous generation.”

Wald, George (1954). The origin of life. Scientific American, 190, No. 2, 44-53.

I am willing to say it is one of the three miracles over the last 14 billion years or so.

 

[ReinyDays]

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.”

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result. I believe in spontaneous generation.”

Wald, George (1954). The origin of life. Scientific American, 190, No. 2, 44-53.

There's some serious cherry picking ... you've never read the whole article because it's not available on-line ... these quotes you've posted are completely out of context and are abridged to serve the Creationist agenda ... you should be ashamed of yourself ...

"Recently I asked a friend, a Nobel laureate in physics, what he would say if I told him that. He laughed and said that he would regard it as more probable that I was mistaken than that the event had actually occurred."

You go to your local college library and read the whole damn article ... and see where you present foolish cut-and-paste ...

 

[Hollie]

You're mistaken, as usual. Religion does not ''seek out the truth''. Religion seeks to support its own biases and preconceptions. That's why your ID'iot creationer ministries have a ''statement of faith'' that requires your ''pwoofs'' to be consistent with the brand of religious dogma.

I heard that you read a book of mazes and then got lost in it.

Instead of cutting and pasting your usual cartoons, why not make an attempt to support your argument?

Nothing to argue. What the OP found turned out to be an interesting shaped asteroid.

Now, what was this?

You can look on the NASA website for the source of the image.

What was especially interesting about the asteroid?

 

[ding]

“Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.”

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result. I believe in spontaneous generation.”

Wald, George (1954). The origin of life. Scientific American, 190, No. 2, 44-53.

There's some serious cherry picking ... you've never read the whole article because it's not available on-line ... these quotes you've posted are completely out of context and are abridged to serve the Creationist agenda ... you should be ashamed of yourself ...

"Recently I asked a friend, a Nobel laureate in physics, what he would say if I told him that. He laughed and said that he would regard it as more probable that I was mistaken than that the event had actually occurred."

You go to your local college library and read the whole damn article ... and see where you present foolish cut-and-paste ...

Please share with me the context that I missed. What was the material difference from what I posted?

If you really want me to feel some shame, I'm going to need a little more than just your belief I should be ashamed. Fair enough?

 

[ding]

Right. Seems like an incredibly amazing number of things that would have to occur in just right sequence for long chains of organic matter - that were in the correct order - to mimic proteins/amino acids to actually make the leap to life without any instructions to control the process.

Well that's the limitations of your human brain fooling you.

No. Actually it is the scope of the process required for inanimate matter to make the leap to life. I just don't believe it is possible. Reiny Days used the whole ocean as his basis for the leap but from what I have read it wouldn't be the whole ocean. It would have to be near the thermal vents. I get the time element. What I don't get is how inanimate matter being in the correct chain configuration accidentally folding itself in the precise order to create a living organism that can then replicate itself.

Reiny took exception with my quote from Wald but that quote concisely captured the difficulty of the task. I get that he was actually jump starting the community to look into spontaneous generation, but that does not eliminate the massive improbability of the task. So I doubt very seriously that they will ever be able to replicate this in the lab without contamination.

But I can say with 100% certainty that what doesn't fool me is the extent that people will be assholes for no other reason than you don't agree with them. I fucking hate uniformity. I think people that try to force others to believe as them should die a horrible and painful death. You feel me?

 

[james bond]

Please share with me the context that I missed. What was the material difference from what I posted?

If you really want me to feel some shame, I'm going to need a little more than just your belief I should be ashamed. Fair enough?

You don't have to read the article. It's not that big a deal (only to ReinyDays). You can get the gist of it here -- Quote Mine Project: Assorted Quotes