Organic Materials Essential for Life on Earth are Found for the First time on the Surface of an Asteroid

[Likkmee]

I LOVE asteroids. I wish they'd all come and visit....NOW

 

[BackAgain]

Hmm, sorry liar. The quote above actually still appears on this page.

I quoted it in my response to it.

You just really don't care if everyone can see what a liar you are, do you?

Yeah. Without an atmosphere there would be no life on our little planet. And you’re wrong in thinking otherwise. However, there would also be no life without water. That requires oxygen.

In your fantasy world, what life came into being on Earth before an atmosphere and/OR water?

 

[badger2]

It was NASA in 2010 that showed interplanetary travel by microorganisms were possible, though Jesus never mentioned asteroids or meteorites to the disciples, even though he and his dad already knew what would eventually happen: this thread.

2010 Interplanetary Travel

Space microbiology - PubMed

The responses of microorganisms (viruses, bacterial cells, bacterial and fungal spores, and lichens) to selected factors of space (microgravity, galactic cosmic radiation, solar UV radiation, and space vacuum) were determined in space and laboratory simulation experiments. In general...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

'....The data support the likelihood of interplanetary transfer of microorganisms in meteorites.'

 

[badger2]

Yeah. Without an atmosphere there would be no life on our little planet. And you’re wrong in thinking otherwise. However, there would also be no life without water. That requires oxygen.

In your fantasy world, what life came into being on Earth before an atmosphere and/OR water?

The Miller-Urey experiment may yield some clues.

 

[BackAgain]

The Miller-Urey experiment may yield some clues.

Ok. Inform me.

 

[BackAgain]

Ok. Inform me.

Never mind. I looked it up. I had heard of those experiments before. Didn’t know the names. I assume the formation of organic molecules from the prehistoric atmosphere and heat and the famous “primordial soup” combined with maybe some crucial lightning strokes maybe did have something to do with the eventual evolution of life.

I still can’t find anything that says “life” as we know it could exist on Earth without water and an atmosphere. In fact, I’ve never heard of that outside of some rank speculation involving different kinds of life which we might not even recognize as constituting “life.”

 

[Seymour Flops]

Never mind. I looked it up. I had heard of those experiments before. Didn’t know the names. I assume the formation of organic molecules from the prehistoric atmosphere and heat and the famous “primordial soup” combined with maybe some crucial lightning strokes maybe did have something to do with the eventual evolution of life.

I still can’t find anything that says “life” as we know it could exist on Earth without water and an atmosphere. In fact, I’ve never heard of that outside of some rank speculation involving different kinds of life which we might not even recognize as constituting “life.”

Three things about those experiments:

1) it turned out that the "primordial soup" imagined in the experiment was nothing like the primordial soup is now believed to have been. Of course, what scientists believe the primordial soup was like will likely change again and again, maybe forever, since such a past condition cannot be proven in the present.

Bottom line is that we don't know what the primordial soup looked like. Therefore, scientists are actually look for a hypothetical primordial soup that "could have" allowed for formation of life from non-life.

2) As long as scientists are looking the answer to what "primordial soup" looked like, and defining "primordial soup," as "conditions that could have allowed abiogenesis, they will not be looking for the truth, they will be looking for partial validation of their theories. Looking for the "primordial soup" means looking for a set of conditions that might have allowed the formation of life from non-life. It is perfectly fine to look for that, as long as you are not looking for that as proof that life formed on Earth from non-life. It is circular reasoning. You don't prove something is true by imagining a way that it could be true.

3) Anytime you design an experiment about the beginning of life on Earth, you're doing what?

Designing.

No designed experiment can prove the absence of design.

 

[BackAgain]

Three things about those experiments:

1) it turned out that the "primordial soup" imagined in the experiment was nothing like the primordial soup is now believed to have been. Of course, what scientists believe the primordial soup was like will likely change again and again, maybe forever, since such a past condition cannot be proven in the present.

Bottom line is that we don't know what the primordial soup looked like. Therefore, scientists are actually look for a hypothetical primordial soup that "could have" allowed for formation of life from non-life.

2) As long as scientists are looking the answer to what "primordial soup" looked like, and defining "primordial soup," as "conditions that could have allowed abiogenesis, they will not be looking for the truth, they will be looking for partial validation of their theories. Looking for the "primordial soup" means looking for a set of conditions that might have allowed the formation of life from non-life. It is perfectly fine to look for that, as long as you are not looking for that as proof that life formed on Earth from non-life. It is circular reasoning. You don't prove something is true by imagining a way that it could be true.

3) Anytime you design an experiment about the beginning of life on Earth, you're doing what?

Designing.

No designed experiment can prove the absence of design.

This stuff interest me. But I make no claim of having a solid scientific foundation. This much I do know: the creation of the organic precursors of life is not the same as the creation of life.

 

[Seymour Flops]

This stuff interest me. But I make no claim of having a solid scientific foundation. This much I do know: the creation of the organic precursors of life is not the same as the creation of life.

Yes, they are different.

One thing is the same, though: We have no evidence, whatsoever, of how either one may have happened.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, they are different.

One thing is the same, though: We have no evidence, whatsoever, of how either one may have happened.

I believe that there is evidence for the formation of some dna from the conditions on the early planet. But life being formed? I have seen nothing that bridges the gulf between non life and life.

 

[badger2]

Ok. Inform me.

Wikipedia: Miller-Urey experiment.

 

[badger2]

Durng planet formation, there is what is called an "ice line." Water is there from the beginning birth of planets.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Without an atmosphere there would be no life on our little planet.

Oops, you went off the rails again.

Our atmosphere, as it is now? Or 4 billion years ago? Do you mean, for the formation of life? Or its continued existence? Use your big boy words, or people won't know what you are trying to say.

And you're wrong in any case. A planet does not have to have a atmosphere for liquid water to exist, for example, below the surface.

You're just making stuff up, and it is all wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I believe that there is evidence for the formation of some dna from the conditions on the early planet. But life being formed? I have seen nothing that bridges the gulf between non life and life.

Oh you haven't?

Okay then, tell us what that would look like. Be specific.

 

[abu afak]

No designed experiment can prove the absence of design.

But your problem is you can't "prove" there IS Design, and it's a widely Discredited-by-science blooper.
Always Dishonestly and stupidly trying the burden shift.
You know I own you and your crap.
`

 

[BackAgain]

Oops, you went off the rails again.

Our atmosphere, as it is now? Or 4 billion years ago? Do you mean, for the formation of life? Or its continued existence? Use your big boy words, or people won't know what you are trying to say.

And you're wrong in any case. A planet does not have to have a atmosphere for liquid water to exist, for example, below the surface.

You're just making stuff up, and it is all wrong.

No. You’ve never been on any rail. Bad place to put your little Thomas the tank engine, you idiot. I didn’t specify what kind of atmosphere. In fact, you did or tried to when you said that life had to exist to put oxygen into the atmosphere. You dolt. We know it’s true that life began in water prior to forming on land. And the microorganisms in water evolved eventually into plants which did suck up CO2 and pump out O2.

But life means more than O2 breathers, ya jerkoff.

You remain committed to your own retardation.

 

[BackAgain]

Oh you haven't?

Okay then, tell us what that would look like. Be specific.

Another ^ in the long line of your incredibly stupid and meaningless questions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Does any of this mean (to you) that life on Earth would have been able to form without our atmosphere?

I didn’t specify what kind of atmosphere

Man, you are such a Shameless Little Liar. Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? Are you just looking for attention?

It's not my fault you can't articulate your thoughts. You didn't even know the earth's atmosphere was radically different when life formed on Earth. Kind of embarrassing, for a grown man.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another ^ in the long line of your incredibly stupid and meaningless questions.

I.E.,you are too incapable and ignorant even to try to answer.

It also demonstrates that your vapid babbling is exactly that. You don't give a shit about evidence. You're just lazy and ignorant and think it makes you sound smart to say you "haven't seen the evidence".

Of course, when you are asked what that evidence would look like, your giney puckers and you tap out. Naturally.

This question always exposes frauds like you.

 

[BackAgain]

Man, you are such a Shameless Little Liar. Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? Are you just looking for attention?

It's not my fault you can't articulate your thoughts. You didn't even know the earth's atmosphere was radically different when life formed on Earth. Kind of embarrassing, for a grown man.

Everyone (even a dolt like you) knew that Earth’s atmosphere changed. I certainly never said anything suggesting that I didn’t know. Why would I? Of course I know.

You lie compulsively. I’d recommend that you rush to a psych ward. Check in. Stay for a while. Get help.

And it’s not my fault that you’re too retarded to grasp clear sentences.

You should be embarrassed. I don’t care if you are a grown woman or still just a little girl.