NASA: ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why is it that I lose you there?

Because it os an arbitrary, spurious assumption.

The only evidence we have supports this...

Which is silly, since we haven't even gathered evidence anywhere else or anything resembling a representative sample. That's no different than assuming all solar systems are just like ours, when you haven't observed any other star systems. An obvious error.

Why would the existence of life stop the formation of new basic life?

Easily...by consuming it, or bu denying it resources. Go ahead, spit in a carp pond...what happens? What happens when dog food is set out for a dog? It becomes dog.

There isn't any proof that the existence of a life form renders impossible the formation of new life.

No doubt. But there is good argument that it would hinder it, both by consuming it and by making scarce the materials it needs to form in the first place, as these materials would be already tied up in extant biomass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All your questions presuppose that the seeding of earth was intentionally orchestrated by a sentient species...

Correct, which is why I prefaced it precisely that way. It was a fun thought exercise, and a pretty good demonstration of the absurdity that life was seeded here intentionally with the intent to eventually create humans.

It appears all that you are suggesting is that abiogenesis happened elsewhere, and DNAfound it's way here by chance.

 

[Vastator]

Why is it that I lose you there?

Because it os an arbitrary, spurious assumption.

The only evidence we have supports this...

Which is silly, since we haven't even gathered evidence anywhere else or anything resembling a representative sample. That's no different than assuming all solar systems are just like ours, when you haven't observed any other star systems. An obvious error.

Why would the existence of life stop the formation of new basic life?

Easily...by consuming it, or bu denying it resources. Go ahead, spit in a carp pond...what happens? What happens when dog food is set out for a dog? It becomes dog.

There isn't any proof that the existence of a life form renders impossible the formation of new life.

No doubt. But there is good argument that it would hinder it, both by consuming it and by making scarce the materials it needs to form in the first place, as these materials would be already tied up in extant biomass.

That's a lot of reaching...

 

[Vastator]

All your questions presuppose that the seeding of earth was intentionally orchestrated by a sentient species...

demonstration of the absurdity that life was seeded here intentionally with the intent to eventually create humans.

Where you could have conjured such an unlikely, and fanciful notion; I cannot imagine. One thing is for sure... It doesn't stem from anything I offered to this discussion...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's a lot of reaching...

It is simple, observable fact that the earth's biomass both ties up and consumes most of the available organic matter .That's why our seas are not organic chemical soup, as they once were .

But, you are invited to tell me what about any of that is a "reach". Maybe you can even produce a shred of evidence to back up that claim. But I seriously doubt it.

"Reaching" is to assume all life in the universe is based on DNA. "Reaching" is to make a silly assumption that the fossil record supports the idea of panspermia, which is an absurd claim. You are the one reaching for whimsical ideas, while I am the one easily and simply explaining everything with known facts.

 

[Vastator]

That's a lot of reaching...

It is simple, observable fact that the earth's biomass both ties up and consumes most of the available organic matter .That's why our seas are not organic chemical soup, as they once were .

But, you are invited to tell me what about any of that is a "reach". Maybe you can even produce a shred of evidence to back up that claim. But I seriously doubt it.

"Reaching" is to assume all life in the universe is based on DNA. "Reaching" is to make a silly assumption that the fossil record supports the idea of panspermia, which is an absurd claim. You are the one reaching for whimsical ideas, while I am the one easily and simply explaining everything with known facts.

All of earths biomass isn't "tied up" in living organisms. The notion is absurd. It would require a weight based life death scale, that would prohibit births of new creatures until others die. While somewhat true for other reasons... It has nothing to do with total amount of biomass.
And the idea that every creature that coelesced has been eaten requires a series of unprovable assumptions.
One being the admission that life has, and/or continues to coelesce.
Springboarding from that one has to assume that each and every one was fodder for the "locals". Ultimately culminating in no chance for survival. Yet predators, and prey live in balance throughout all eco systems.

Your theory... While not "impossible"... I find lacking in the probability department.

 

[Vastator]

Why is it that I lose you there?

Because it os an arbitrary, spurious assumption.

The only evidence we have supports this...

Which is silly, since we haven't even gathered evidence anywhere else or anything resembling a representative sample. That's no different than assuming all solar systems are just like ours, when you haven't observed any other star systems. An obvious error.

Why would the existence of life stop the formation of new basic life?

Easily...by consuming it, or bu denying it resources. Go ahead, spit in a carp pond...what happens? What happens when dog food is set out for a dog? It becomes dog.

There isn't any proof that the existence of a life form renders impossible the formation of new life.

No doubt. But there is good argument that it would hinder it, both by consuming it and by making scarce the materials it needs to form in the first place, as these materials would be already tied up in extant biomass.

That's a lot of reaching...

"Reaching" is to make a silly assumption that the fossil record supports the idea of panspermia, which is an absurd claim. .

Actually... I showed how the fossil record calls into serious question, the theory that earth was capable of producing life.
The living record however... showing only one singular common ancestor is the intriguing aspect that makes panspermia a theory worthy of consideration...

 

[Vastator]

Why is it that I lose you there?

Which is silly, since we haven't even gathered evidence anywhere else or anything resembling a representative sample. That's no different than assuming all solar systems are just like ours, when you haven't observed any other star systems. An obvious error.

That's a ludicrous claim. We've observed literally billions of stars, and can calculate their weights, orbits, and compositions. And e an when it comes to other solar systems we can make many sound predictions based on proven mathematics, and physics. The only thing that changes from system to sytem is the proportions, and arrangements of the components. With just a little info we can accurately predict quite a lot. The laws of physics don't change anywhere but a black hole. Even that is debateable...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All of earths biomass isn't "tied up" in living or

I didn't say all. In fact, I have usually y qualified it to say "much". And that is a fact. And what that does it make it more scarce.

And the extant biomass will consume much of the free biomass. Also fact.

The result of this would be to hinder any different types of life that may form, greatly slowing or even renders impossible this lengthy process.

It has nothing to do with total amount of biomass.

Of course that would affect the odds of a successful abiohenesis and the speed. It would be absurd to say otherwise.

Actually... I showed how the fossil record calls into serious question, the theory that earth was capable of producing life.

At no point did you show such a thing. And the claim is prima facie absurd, as it presupposes that you have been divined information that scientists have not. The fossil record, on the contrary, seems to indicate that life formed here as soon as it was able. Not a billion years later, as one may expect drom "seeding". But as soon as it was able. The fossil and geological records support this idea, not your whimsical claims to the contrary.

And the idea that every creature that coelesced has been eaten requires a series of unprovable assumptions.

Or, simply died. And the process may not have even made ot that far, being disturbed at every step by extant life.

That's a ludicrous claim. We've observed literally billions of stars, and can calculate their weights, orbits, and compositions.

Which is why I said,"Before observing other star systems" . You really need to slow down.

The evidence that you claim to present is not evidence at all for your claim, as it is more easily and simply explained away while keeping abiogenesis on Earth intact. You are not really meeting the challenge of this simple principle. Finding a spilled glass of milk is not evidence that a unicorn was in your kitchen, when you can just explain it by pointing at the dog in your kitchen.

Your claims that the fossil record supports seeding are ridiculous.

 

[Vastator]

[QUOTE/]
Not a billion years later, as one may expect drom "seeding". But as soon as it was able. The fossil and geological records support this idea, not your whimsical claims to the contrary.
[/QUOTE]
As soon as It was "able"? You now what conditions make genesis "able"? Do share...
It seems you are the one positing whimsical claims... You now know the the time table for both native genesis, and panspermia, as it pertains to dominating earth...? Do share...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As soon as It was "able"? You now what conditions make genesi "able"? Do share...

Liquid water, bearable temperatures. This isn't rocket surgery. You can look this up. Yes, what a coincidence that it happened right when it was able. And not later, and never again.

Those are known facts, and you embarrass yourself to call them "whimsical". You have attempted this goofy characterization several times now, and it does not help your case or credibility.

 

[Vastator]

All of earths biomass isn't "tied up" in living or

I didn't say all. In fact, I have usually y qualified it to say "much". And that is a fact. And what that does it make it more scarce.

And the extant biomass will consume much of the free biomass. Also fact.

The result of this would be to hinder any different types of life that may form, greatly slowing or even renders impossible this lengthy process.

It has nothing to do with total amount of biomass.

Of course that would affect the odds of a successful abiohenesis and the speed. It would be absurd to say otherwise.

Actually... I showed how the fossil record calls into serious question, the theory that earth was capable of producing life.

At no point did you show such a thing. And the claim is prima facie absurd, as it presupposes that you have been divined information that scientists have not. The fossil record, on the contrary, seems to indicate that life formed here as soon as it was able. Not a billion years later, as one may expect drom "seeding". But as soon as it was able. The fossil and geological records support this idea, not your whimsical claims to the contrary.

And the idea that every creature that coelesced has been eaten requires a series of unprovable assumptions.

Or, simply died. And the process may not have even made ot that far, being disturbed at every step by extant life.

That's a ludicrous claim. We've observed literally billions of stars, and can calculate their weights, orbits, and compositions.

Which is why I said,"Before observing other star systems" . You really need to slow down.

The evidence that you claim to present is not evidence at all for your claim, as it is more easily and simply explained away while keeping abiogenesis on Earth intact. You are not really meeting the challenge of this simple principle. Finding a spilled glass of milk is not evidence that a unicorn was in your kitchen, when you can just explain it by pointing at the dog in your kitchen.

Your claims that the fossil record supports seeding are ridiculous.

I didn't make the claim you credit me for. So let's keep this in the level lest I bore of you...
What i did show is that the living record supports only one single example of life having ever existed on earth. Which shoots the theory of earth ever having been a hotbed of life creation to shit. While a single sample (which is what we actually can show) making it here, and being left to flourish unopposed has no gaping holes. In not claiming its a fact. But I find your theory requires many more leaps of faith than panspermia.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You now know the the time table for both native genesis, and panspermia

Just abiogenesis. The only thing I know about panspermia is that it is possible. But not a shred of evidence supports it so far, while the evidence we do have, both theoretical and empirical, seems to easily exaplin the origin of life here without panspermia, and even seems to contradict it, at times.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What i did show is that the living record supports only one single example of life having ever existed on earth.

Which is not surprising at all, and certainly is not evidence for seeding, as it can be easily and simply explained away by simpler methods.

And there you have it.

 

[toobfreak]

Exactly what an alien assuming human form would say.....

‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth.

Actually, there is a CERTAINTY that life is out there, they now feel certain that it probably lives even deep inside Pluto with an outside just above absolute zero! Indeed, we are Martians kicked off that planet billions of years ago as spores in a rock blasted by an asteroid that eventually found its way here.

 

[Vastator]

As soon as It was "able"? You now what conditions make genesi "able"? Do share...

Liquid water, bearable temperatures. This isn't rocket surgery. You can look this up. Yes, what a coincidence that it happened right when it was able. And not later, and never again.

Those are known facts, and you embarrass yourself to call them "whimsical". You have attempted this goofy characterization several times now, and it does not help your case or credibility.

Liquid water you say? How bout that!? I've got shit loads! So... What were the properties of this water? You know... Ph, salinity, what minerals were suspended in it...? Do tell us some of the facts you claim to have offered. You have my attention.
Bearable temperatures, you say...? Hmmm... Could we trouble you for those temperatures by any chance? You know... Since you're operating off of the "facts" and all... I'm curious. Educate me.
And you now know that it never happened again; when you previously claimed it could have, but was certainly eaten if it did. Could you direct me to those findings as well.
I'll ask why you aren't touring the circuit, while waiting for your Nobel later. But for now; answers to these so few questions will suffice. Shouldn't be too hard. Since... You know... They're facts, and all..

 

[Vastator]

What i did show is that the living record supports only one single example of life having ever existed on earth.

Which is not surprising at all, and certainly is not evidence for seeding, as it can be easily and simply explained away by simpler methods.

And there you have it.

Far from simple...
Your supposition requires a great number of unsupported, and as of yet unproven assumptions, in order to be plausible.
Panspermia on the other hand has first hand verifiable evidence to its efficacy.
We know some micro organisms can go dormant in unfavorable conditions.
We know such organisms can reanimate when conditions are suitable.
We know planetary, and other material can be transfered across space. (look up at the moon tonight if you don't believe me).
We also know that organisms can travel through open space, and remain viable upon reaching a habitable environment. (see Tardigrades for recerence).
No, my dear girl... You have offered no facts. You offered beliefs, and you're welcome to them. You might even be right. But you certainly haven't offered any facts to support your beliefs. And the facts we are privy to, call Your beliefs into rather serious question...

 

[Vastator]

You now know the the time table for both native genesis, and panspermia

Just abiogenesis. The only thing I know about panspermia is that it is possible. But not a shred of evidence supports it so far, while the evidence we do have, both theoretical and empirical, seems to easily exaplin the origin of life here without panspermia, and even seems to contradict it, at times.

We have no evidence that demonstrates that earth is capable of producing life, or ever had been. It is only infered by many because it is present now...
We only have proof that it exists here now, and to some point in the past...
There is no evidence empiracle, or otherwise that demonstrates that it originally formed here....

 

[sealybobo]

As soon as It was "able"? You now what conditions make genesi "able"? Do share...

Liquid water, bearable temperatures. This isn't rocket surgery. You can look this up. Yes, what a coincidence that it happened right when it was able. And not later, and never again.

Those are known facts, and you embarrass yourself to call them "whimsical". You have attempted this goofy characterization several times now, and it does not help your case or credibility.

Liquid water you say? How bout that!? I've got shit loads! So... What were the properties of this water? You know... Ph, salinity, what minerals were suspended in it...? Do tell us some of the facts you claim to have offered. You have my attention.
Bearable temperatures, you say...? Hmmm... Could we trouble you for those temperatures by any chance? You know... Since you're operating off of the "facts" and all... I'm curious. Educate me.
And you now know that it never happened again; when you previously claimed it could have, but was certainly eaten if it did. Could you direct me to those findings as well.
I'll ask why you aren't touring the circuit, while waiting for your Nobel later. But for now; answers to these so few questions will suffice. Shouldn't be too hard. Since... You know... They're facts, and all..

But what you propose is even more insane.

If we proved every solar system eventually produces life wouldn’t you just say only a god could be behind it?

 

[Vastator]

As soon as It was "able"? You now what conditions make genesi "able"? Do share...

Liquid water, bearable temperatures. This isn't rocket surgery. You can look this up. Yes, what a coincidence that it happened right when it was able. And not later, and never again.

Those are known facts, and you embarrass yourself to call them "whimsical". You have attempted this goofy characterization several times now, and it does not help your case or credibility.

Liquid water you say? How bout that!? I've got shit loads! So... What were the properties of this water? You know... Ph, salinity, what minerals were suspended in it...? Do tell us some of the facts you claim to have offered. You have my attention.
Bearable temperatures, you say...? Hmmm... Could we trouble you for those temperatures by any chance? You know... Since you're operating off of the "facts" and all... I'm curious. Educate me.
And you now know that it never happened again; when you previously claimed it could have, but was certainly eaten if it did. Could you direct me to those findings as well.
I'll ask why you aren't touring the circuit, while waiting for your Nobel later. But for now; answers to these so few questions will suffice. Shouldn't be too hard. Since... You know... They're facts, and all..

But what you propose is even more insane.

If we proved every solar system eventually produces life wouldn’t you just say only a god could be behind it?

I highly doubt, (even categorically deny every solar system could/would) produce life.
The chances that I'd be so incurious as to chalk up the "why", to mythology, is even less...