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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ah, so the guy who comfortably retired in his 50’s after a career in engineering, has a US patent in his name for a medical device, has designs flying in spacecraft and airlines is anti-science!

Nobody has any idea what you are talking about, least of all you.

 

[Karl Rand]

TO ANYONE: Why don’t some patterns of atoms NOT enjoy listening to Bach?

 

[james bond]

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.

Still no scientific evidence of abiogenesis while LP's experiment does show microbes can only come from other microbes. God's invisible life forms >>>>>>>> atheist scientists' invisible matter.

 

[Karl Rand]

There’s no point in arguing with true believers. I’ve said it before and sadly I’ll probably have to say it again.
Underlying all this though is a definition of LIFE that might be a little too narrow considering how so much taking place in the Universe is as yet unknown. Well not unknown to true believers who imagine they've been provided with all the answers they need by a so called holy book.

 

[james bond]

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

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

NASA's lies make the news while my truth just makes USMB forums. It should be the other way around, but james bond sez there are no aliens somehow doesn't make the news.

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.

Too much wrongness in your post to rebut. You ignore the fine tuning facts as well as solar wind and the rest. The Earth has 3/4 of the surface covered by water due to the flood. That's worth exploring more than Martian soil or underground ocean hypothesis. No evidence of actual underground oceans and you can't have liquid water on the surface. Finally, the billions of years ago may not have happened yet. Can we just let the Chinese go to Mars?

 

[james bond]

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~

Your logic is asinine. Climate deniers should just stay on Earth while the global warmists should go to Mars or elsewhere to protect themselves.

 

[evenflow1969]

That makes no sense. If there is a chance of Alien life outside of the Earth, it would be impossible to prove those Aliens have not visited Earth.

What the guy means is they are not hiding alien craft and nasa is not aware of visitation. You are right no way to prove a negative. For all we know they could have been here m illions of years ago. That all being said there alot of rocks out there what are the odds a race capable of star travel found ours?

 

[evenflow1969]

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

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

NASA's lies make the news while my truth just makes USMB forums. It should be the other way around, but james bond sez there are no aliens somehow doesn't make the news.

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.

Too much wrongness in your post to rebut. You ignore the fine tuning facts as well as solar wind and the rest. The Earth has 3/4 of the surface covered by water due to the flood. That's worth exploring more than Martian soil or underground ocean hypothesis. No evidence of actual underground oceans and you can't have liquid water on the surface. Finally, the billions of years ago may not have happened yet. Can we just let the Chinese go to Mars?

Chinese to mars us to europa!

 

[james bond]

This ridiculous talking point brought to you by creation.com: Louis Pasteur - creation.com

Real observational, testable and falsifiable science.

"The ancient Greeks had believed that small animals such as worms, mice, and maggots sprang to life automatically from the non-living matter around (such as rotting flour, a sweaty shirt, or decaying meat). This belief that living matter arose from non-living material is called spontaneous generation. The idea of maggots’ coming spontaneously to life out of decaying meat was successfully challenged in 1668 by Italian biologist Francesco Redi. When he covered the meat with gauze to prevent flies from laying their eggs on it, no maggots appeared in the meat. (The maggots are actually the larvae which hatch from flies’ eggs.)

Long after the idea of spontaneous generation of maggots, mice and worms had been generally discarded, scientists still clung to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic animals. To disprove this idea also, Pasteur boiled some broth to kill any microbes present. With special glassware, he allowed air to circulate over the broth, but prevented microbes in the air from reaching the broth. As Pasteur expected, no microbes appeared in the broth. Pasteur’s findings showed that microbes were not spontaneously generated from the broth itself. Microbes would only appear in the broth if they were allowed in with the air. He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.’2

Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution. Despite all the efforts of evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found. Pasteur’s findings conflicted with the idea of spontaneous generation (as do all scientific results since). Consequently, Louis Pasteur was a strong opponent of Darwin’s theory."

Yet, we still have no real scientific evidence for abiogenesis except your "because we're here" claim. You are one of biggest liars on USMB.

 

[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~

Your logic is asinine. Climate deniers should just stay on Earth while the global warmists should go to Mars or elsewhere to protect themselves.

Grand plan, how much are tickets? ~S~

 

[james bond]

Behold the utter and complete ignorance of the fundamental ideas of evolution on display in that joke of a blog:

"He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.’2

Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution."
........................
In evolution (a/k/a, reality), every individual is the same species as it's parent(s). "Spontaneous generation" is not a part of evolution. Nobody with even the most cursory understanding of evolution would think that showing a microbe's parents have to be present to get the offspring undermines evolutionary theory.

It did, however, undermine a lot of religion-fueled bullshit that was pervasive at the time. Strange...the blogger does not mention this! I doubt he is even aware of his enlightened mindset on germ theory that Pasteur gifted him, or that his own church stood in the way of this theory.

Germ theory backs up the Bible, not evolution.

"Shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life. Pasteur’s simple, but elegant swan-necked flask experiments not only put to rest the organic life-from-non-life idea, but also set the foundation for the law of biogenesis: life only comes from life. The genesis of germs in hospital patients were the result of microbes having parents, not a result of spontaneous generation. This revolutionary idea would have application in many areas of medicine. It forms the basis of sterilization, asepsis in surgery, and the germ theory of disease."

It destroyed Darwin and helped countless people in medicine and under medical care.

Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, Genesis of Germs

Be careful what you lie about Fort Fun Indiana.

 

[sparky]

"The ancient Greeks had believed that small animals such as worms, mice, and maggots sprang to life automatically from the non-living matter around (such as rotting flour, a sweaty shirt, or decaying meat)

remind me to lay off the lamb.....

~S~

 

[james bond]

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~

Your logic is asinine. Climate deniers should just stay on Earth while the global warmists should go to Mars or elsewhere to protect themselves.

Grand plan, how much are tickets? ~S~

Why ask me? I'm one of those staying.

Anyway, I thought I'd give you some help.

A one-way ticket to Mars, apply now - CNN

 

[sparky]

Behold the utter and complete ignorance of the fundamental ideas of evolution on display in that joke of a blog:

"He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.’2

Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution."
........................
In evolution (a/k/a, reality), every individual is the same species as it's parent(s). "Spontaneous generation" is not a part of evolution. Nobody with even the most cursory understanding of evolution would think that showing a microbe's parents have to be present to get the offspring undermines evolutionary theory.

It did, however, undermine a lot of religion-fueled bullshit that was pervasive at the time. Strange...the blogger does not mention this! I doubt he is even aware of his enlightened mindset on germ theory that Pasteur gifted him, or that his own church stood in the way of this theory.

Germ theory backs up the Bible, not evolution.

"Shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life. Pasteur’s simple, but elegant swan-necked flask experiments not only put to rest the organic life-from-non-life idea, but also set the foundation for the law of biogenesis: life only comes from life. The genesis of germs in hospital patients were the result of microbes having parents, not a result of spontaneous generation. This revolutionary idea would have application in many areas of medicine. It forms the basis of sterilization, asepsis in surgery, and the germ theory of disease."

It destroyed Darwin and helped countless people in medicine and under medical care.

Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, Genesis of Germs

Be careful what you lie about Fort Fun Indiana.

In past years revisionist historians have been rewriting the worldview of Christians who have made some of the major discoveries in biology and medicine

Doubtless it'll be part of some religmo park.....~S~

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still no scientific evidence of abiogenesis

Wrong, all the scientific evidence ever collected about anything points to abiogenesis. I already covered that.

Hey, here is a chance to embarrass yourself:

What would be evidence of abiogenesis?

 

[james bond]

A frightening thought:

Given the geometry of our universe, there may be a limited amount of time for species to contact each other. It may be true that not enough species in the right places and distances from each other will exist before such contact is all but impossible. Developing scientific knowledge and engineering with it takes time. Given the many pratfalls that can befall a species over time, it may end up that time simply runs out before two species from different planets contact each other.

Or not.

Given you believe in billions of years, Fermi's paradox (Fermi is way smarter than your lying arse), has shown they would've made contact already.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Behold the utter and complete ignorance of the fundamental ideas of evolution on display in that joke of a blog:

"He clearly showed that even for microbes, life came only from life—‘Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves.’2

Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution."
........................
In evolution (a/k/a, reality), every individual is the same species as it's parent(s). "Spontaneous generation" is not a part of evolution. Nobody with even the most cursory understanding of evolution would think that showing a microbe's parents have to be present to get the offspring undermines evolutionary theory.

It did, however, undermine a lot of religion-fueled bullshit that was pervasive at the time. Strange...the blogger does not mention this! I doubt he is even aware of his enlightened mindset on germ theory that Pasteur gifted him, or that his own church stood in the way of this theory.

Germ theory backs up the Bible, not evolution.

"Shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life. Pasteur’s simple, but elegant swan-necked flask experiments not only put to rest the organic life-from-non-life idea, but also set the foundation for the law of biogenesis: life only comes from life. The genesis of germs in hospital patients were the result of microbes having parents, not a result of spontaneous generation. This revolutionary idea would have application in many areas of medicine. It forms the basis of sterilization, asepsis in surgery, and the germ theory of disease."

It destroyed Darwin and helped countless people in medicine and under medical care.

Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, Genesis of Germs

Be careful what you lie about Fort Fun Indiana.

Pasteur only proved that microbes didn't poof into existence. That's it. At no point does any part of evolutionary theory claim otherwise. So you and the blogger are both embarrassing yourselves. Correction, just the blogger, as you are merely plagiarizing him.

 

[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~

Your logic is asinine. Climate deniers should just stay on Earth while the global warmists should go to Mars or elsewhere to protect themselves.

Grand plan, how much are tickets? ~S~

Why ask me? I'm one of those staying.

Anyway, I thought I'd give you some help.

A one-way ticket to Mars, apply now - CNN

Still, the company said it has received more than 10,000 e-mails from interested would-be spacefarers.

I've got just the man for the job.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fermi's paradox (Fermi is way smarter than your lying arse), has shown they would've made contact already.

No it doesn't, that's merely thought experiment. It doesn't conclusively tell us anything. How very uncientific of you to say otherwise.

For instance, life has existed on Earth for 4 billion years. And we have travelled to no other star systems.

 

[james bond]

Still no scientific evidence of abiogenesis

Wrong, all the scientific evidence ever collected about anything points to abiogenesis. I already covered that.

Hey, here is a chance to embarrass yourself:

What would be evidence of abiogenesis?

More lies. Otherwise, you would've provided the post #.

Already said Louis Pasteur showed abiogenesis doesn't happen in a couple of posts. Check post #111 for one example.

You are too stupid to know you're whipped.