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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What evidence do they base it on?

The circumstantial evidence that abiogenesis has occurred at least once in the universe, and the physical laws are the same everywhere.

 

[james bond]

Fine tuning facts were discovered by atheist scientists.

No they weren't. Facts were discovered but scientists, and then you silly cultists made them mean whatever you need them to mean to maintain your hilariously dumb magical paradigms.

Now you're changing history. I guess I have to remind some people of what the alien "faith-based" wackos have to overcome.

 

[james bond]

What evidence do they base it on?

The circumstantial evidence that abiogenesis has occurred at least once in the universe, and the physical laws are the same everywhere.

That isn't real science. It's historical or forensics science based on assumptions. The facts are that abiogenesis does not happen. It's been rendered pseudoscience because it's not observable nor testable. Spontaneous generation, which abiogenesis is based on, before that was rendered pseudoscience, too. When we look at the physical laws, we see that cosmic inflation does not happen. We see that life doesn't happen elsewhere besides Earth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fine tuning facts were discovered by atheist scientists.

No they weren't. Facts were discovered but scientists, and then you silly cultists made them mean whatever you need them to mean to maintain your hilariously dumb magical paradigms.

Now you're changing history. I guess I have to remind some people of what the alien "faith-based" wackos have to overcome.

I changed no history. What you did there was to slip your magical talking point into your loaded question, thus assuming as true the very thing it is your burden to argue. It is specious and dishonest and 100% to be expected from you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That isn't real science.

No shit, it's not meant to be. The "real science" occurs when we perform experiments and observations. You are quickly becoming incoherent. I invite you to please learn the difference between a hypothesis and the process of testing a hypothesis to avoid further embarrassment for yourself.

 

[james bond]

Here's a scientific argument.

That's not an argument at all, scientific or otherwise. I don't think you understand what the word "argument" means.

It's an argument that you can't figure out. The argument goes against life on Mars because life can't survive without being able to overcome solar winds and its extreme radiation. The experiments show no creature can survive in space in those conditions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's an argument that you can't figure out.

Wrong, please re read your own post. You stated no argument whatsoever. And you still haven't. That shows me you don't really know how to state an argument.

And do yourself a favor: your plagiarized, creationist canards are older than dirt. You embarrass yourself to dance and prance and declare people don't understand them. Your simpleminded, specious creationist nonsense is not a hard exercise for a high school sophomore 3 months into biology.

But, go ahead big guy: state your argument in simple form with simple statements.

 

[james bond]

Fine tuning facts were discovered by atheist scientists.

No they weren't. Facts were discovered but scientists, and then you silly cultists made them mean whatever you need them to mean to maintain your hilariously dumb magical paradigms.

Now you're changing history. I guess I have to remind some people of what the alien "faith-based" wackos have to overcome.

I changed no history. What you did there was to slip in your magical talking point into your loaded question, thus assuming as true the very thing it is your burden to argue. It is specious and dishonest and 100% to be expected from you.

It explained why no life anywhere else and this is the observation we get from all the probes and evidence we have gathered so far. People wanted to go to Mars before, but now not so much. If I didn't have the scientific evidence, then why say that life CAN'T exist outside Earth? You're the one bringing in the "magical" talking point into your rebuttal. I just presented straight science in a S&T forum.

 

[james bond]

It's an argument that you can't figure out.

Wrong, please re read your own post. You stated no argument whatsoever. And you still haven't. That shows me you don't really know how to state an argument.

And do yourself a favor: your plagiarized, creationist canards are older than dirt. You embarrass yourself to dance and prance and declare people don't understand them. Your simpleminded, specious creationist nonsense is not a hard exercise for a high school sophomore 3 months into biology.

But, go ahead big guy: state your argument in simple form with simple statements.

And you could not provide any evidence that humans would be safe from the solar winds on Mars. You did not even try to answer my question. Both the no magnetic field and no ozone layers on Mars are scientific facts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The argument goes against life on Mars because life can't survive without being able to overcome solar winds and its extreme radiation.

Let's pick apart why this is wrong.

First, Mars once did have a magnetic field. As the search is not just for life, but also past life, your talking point is hot garbage.

Furthermore, any search for extant life would involve looking underground, where the life would be shielded from this radiation. Again, your talking point is hot garbage.

Third, the "fine tuning" to which you repeatedly refer is just a variation of an old fallacy called "Hoyle's fallacy". This fallacy is fodder for college sophomores taking discrete mathematics. And, since you don't seem to realize that nobody is insisting that creatures identical to humans in every way exist on other planets, you are pulling your taffy for no reason anyway.

 

[james bond]

That isn't real science.

No shit, it's not meant to be. The "real science" occurs when we perform experiments and observations. You are quickly becoming incoherent. I invite you to please learn the difference between a hypothesis and the process of testing a hypothesis to avoid further embarrassment for yourself.

With abiogenesis, experiments were done and it turned out to be a defective experiement. It also showed that life didn't happen as hypothesized, the opposite happened. Yet, atheist scientists today accept life from non-life or soup based on your "circumstantial" evidence. When was "circumstantial" evidence accepted as real science?

 

[james bond]

The argument goes against life on Mars because life can't survive without being able to overcome solar winds and its extreme radiation.

Let's pick apart why this is wrong.

First, Mars once did have a magnetic field. As the search is not just for life, but also past life, your talking point is hot garbage.

Furthermore, any search for extant life would involve looking underground, where the life would be shielded from this radiation. Again, your talking point is hot garbage.

Third, the "fine tuning" to which you repeatedly refer is just a variation of an old fallacy called "Hoyle's fallacy". This fallacy is fodder for college sophomores taking discrete mathematics. And, since you don't seem to realize that nobody is insisting that creatures identical to humans in every way exist on other planets, you are pulling your taffy for no reason anyway.

That's not what NASA stated per the link. They expect to find life with no evidence.

As to your argument, what about no ozone layer? The magnetic field provides shielding, but the solar winds still get through. Besides, the evidence is no evidence of past life, too.

NASA did probe underground and found the soil contaminated. How far do you have to go underground? And aren't you assuming alien life when there has been no evidence? Likely, there is and was no life.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

With abiogenesis, experiments were done and it turned out to be a defective experiement.

This is a shameless lie . Expermient after experiment confirms the required events not only to be possible, but likely. I would say you just shamelessly made that up, but we both know you plagiarized it from creation.com without fact checking it.

It also showed that life didn't happen as hypothesized

A stupid error on your part. We could come up with 100 ideas for the specifics of abiogenesis and rule out all 100 of them, and that would still not rule out abiogenesis.

Yet, atheist scientists today accept life from non-life or soup based on your "circumstantial" evidence.

Another stupid error. The circumstantial evidence I presented was not support for abiogenesis, but rather support for finding life elsewhere. Abiogenis is a foregone conclusion due to the fact that all the evidence ever collected on any subject shows that our universe is deterministic and the laws of physics work everywhere. Where once there was no star, and then there was, a physical process following natural laws connects the two states of affairs. It is the same for everything. That includes life.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's not what NASA stated per the link. They expect to find life with no evidence.

A shameless lie. You are really a font of shameless lies. You are embarrassing yourself.

NASA did probe underground and found the soil contaminated. How far do you have to go underground?

Perhaps kilometers. We don't know. How about, ask a scientist instead of a lying creationist blogger?

 

[james bond]

With abiogenesis, experiments were done and it turned out to be a defective experiement.

This is a shameless lie . Expermient after experiment confirms the events required to not only be possible, but likely. I would say you just shamelessly made that up, but we both know you plagiarized it from creation.com without fact checking it.

It also showed that life didn't happen as hypothesized

A stupid error on your part. We could come up with 100 ideas for the specifics of abiogenesis and rule out all 100 of them, and that would still not rule out abiogenesis.

Yet, atheist scientists today accept life from non-life or soup based on your "circumstantial" evidence.

Another stupid error. The circumstantial evidence I presented was not support for abiogenesis, but rather support for finding life elsewhere. Abiogenis is a foregone conclusion due to the fact that all the evidence ever collected on any subject shows that our universe is deterministic and the laws of physics work everywhere. Where once there was no star, and then there was, a physical process following natural laws connects the two states of affairs. It is the same for everything. That includes life.

Louis Pasteur, creation scientist and father of modern microbiology, showed that life does not arise from non-life. He discovered it was microbes not abiogenesis. Thus, your stupidity and belief in stupid atheist science was destroyed some time ago. Still rotfl your "faith-based" belief in abiogenesis.

 

[james bond]

That's not what NASA stated per the link. They expect to find life with no evidence.

A shameless lie. You are really a font of shameless lies. You are embarrassing yourself.

NASA did probe underground and found the soil contaminated. How far do you have to go underground?

Perhaps kilometers. We don't know. How about, ask a scientist instead of a lying creationist blogger?

Because it's NASA's scientists who are lying. They just want your hard earned tax dollars.

Thus, we can conclude you have no way to overcome the toxic soil so no need going further or kilometers. All of this can be done with robotics as we have done so far. No need for human exploration. At least, I have made you confess to NASA wanting to find evidence of life on Mars, when there is/wasn't any. It means it's a huge waste of money.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's the silliness of aliens again. The atheists and their atheist scientists cannot help but believe in make-believe spaghetti monsters, global warming, aliens, panspermia and the like. There is absolutely no evidence of aliens and absolutely no way they can exist due to real science. The fine tuning facts and solar wind outside of Earth prevent it so for the entire universe. Thus, the atheist scientists have to make up stuff in the make-believe evolutionary science of multiverses. People are afraid of creating another universe at LHC haha. What a joke this atheist science is!

NASA wants more money to find aliens on Mars with a manned mission. Let the Chinese with money or the Russians do it. We can sell them our rocket technology to help get there and find nothing. Hopefully, their astronauts will be able to come back and not die there due to the solar wind (radiation).

NASA: We'll find alien life in 10 to 20 years

Is there a chance these insipid scientists figure this stuff out? Nope.

It is obvious you are ignorant about science.
Bashing something you are ignorant about is stupid, don’t you realize?

First of all, scientists are AGNOSTIC when doing science. They test hypotheses with scientific methods.
Second, they don’t make up stuff, like Trump and many other non-scientific politicians do. Scientists collect observable data and interpret them.
Third, scientific studies are usually peer-reviewed by reputable scientists from many nations, not only USA.

You want to learn about science, or maintain your biased stupid agenda?

Why should I learn what I already know. You present no scientific argument. Or else some atheist would have shown "scientific" evidence for why they believe in aliens. Instead, it's the opposition, creation scientists and people in-the-middle like I, who have presented the scientific evidence.

It's obvious you lack intelligence to figure these things out. Science isn't agnostic, it's atheist. Today's "secular," i.e. ATHEIST, science powers have systematically eliminated the opposition of those who believed in creation. Many scientists just accepted this before the 1850s. Before, creation scientists were able to participate in peer-reviews, present their scientific papers and such. Now they can lose their jobs for presenting a hypothesis based on the Bible such as the universe has boundaries or life from non-life cannot happen. Much of the greatest scientific minds in science were creation scientists such as Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo and more. Bacon is the father of modern science. Today's atheist scientists are wrong just like you.

Thus, your stupid assertions makes you a stupendous dunce. Go sit in the corner wearing your pointy head cap and whine.

Bitter Mutant Misfits Have Turned Science Into Authoritarian Irrationalism

It's a matter of attitude, which is the ulterior motivation of both. Theists believe Man was created in the image of a Supreme Being, which makes them embrace life. Postmodern evolutionists believe Man is just another animal, and a dreary, vicious, and destructive one at that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Louis Pasteur, creation scientist and father of modern microbiology, showed that life does not arise from non-life.

No he didn't. He only showed that microbes don't poof into existence overnight. Which, as any honest person would admit, does not undermine the fact of abiogenesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because it's NASA's scientists who are lying.

No they aren't. That's another lie by you.

Thus, we can conclude you have no way to overcome the toxic soil so no need going further or kilometers.

Wrong, we already know there are underground bodies of water. Furthermore the Martian soil layer is very thin. Third, the search is for past life as well, and themartian soil was not the same billions of years ago.

So literally every word of that statement by you is wrong. This is because you pulled it out of your ass without thinking it through.

 

[sparky]

Here's a scientific argument. If NASA is planning a manned expedition to Mars, how are they going to protect the astronauts from the fine tuning facts of no magnetic field and ozone layer? The astronauts will have to survive the solar winds and extreme radiation which no creature has been able to survive.

So send some climate deniers , nothing bugs them.......~S~