The Origin of Life

[DOTR]

Then lets hear no more tales of imaginary life that arose and then dies off with no trace. Or extraterrestrial life. Unless you can provide a test for it with positive results.

That's bad science and bad logic. We do not rule out the possibility that something exists, when everything we know tells us it is possible, just because we have not found it, yet. Thank goodness scientists don't give up so easily or employ such poor logic!

.
That's bad science and bad logic.

We do not rule out the possibility that something exists, when everything we know tells us it is possible, just because we have not found it, yet.

That's untestable nonsense not required to explain anything.

make up your mind ....

You need to slow down, i think maybe you read too fast. He demanded POSITIVE results from tests, not merely that the idea be testable. The idea IS testable. Your metaphysical voodoo is not.

Any tests which have been done have given negative results. What do you want..Two stone tablets and a pillar of fire?

 

[BreezeWood]

[Q life formed on Earth is not Earth centric.

Proof?

.
the physiology is dependent on universal metaphysical axioms proven through evolution.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

The best way would be to show me some life elsewhere. I'll await your proof. Let me know when you have it.

.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

the physiology representing life on earth is earth centric, what the physiology requires to exist is consistent with the initial singularity that made all existence possible. metaphysical axioms, purity ... is / are required.

You don't know jackshit. Show me where life exist elsewhere or shut the **** up.

The universe was created with the building blocks of life are else we wouldn't be here. However, we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the conditions resulting in those building blocks creating our biosphere ever existed elsewhere. It may or may not. We just don't know.

We only have one data point on the existence of life and that is here on earth. Until we get another data point we can't make extrapolations. Just wishing or hoping that life exist elsewhere because it does here may satisfy our desire to believe in something else but it is not scientifically supported.

.

You don't know jackshit. Show me where life exist elsewhere or shut the **** up.

Earth's beginning was without life, the OP does not indicate where it came from only that it occurred initially once that can be concluded equally as much extraterrestrial as natively induced or as implied a desert creationist folly ... so elsewhere is whert life on earth did originate when initiated on earth.

The universe was created with the building blocks of life are else we wouldn't be here. However, we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the conditions resulting in those building blocks creating our biosphere ever existed elsewhere. It may or may not. We just don't know.

you are again stating a fallacy, our biosphere is earth centric when in fact it also is the product of building blocks you initially claim are universal which all but states that under proper conditions everywhere in the universe will have the same results as planet earth.

We only have one data point on the existence of life and that is here on earth.

as stated before, earth initially was without life therefore your data point is not earth but an unknown location and therefore does not exist as a reference.

You need to slow down, i think maybe you read too fast. He demanded POSITIVE results from tests, not merely that the idea be testable. The idea IS testable. Your metaphysical voodoo is not.

physiology only exists physically itself metaphorically as when its source, life ends the physical component disappears never to be seen again - that is a testable conclusion for the presence of the metaphorical axioms that were employed for the physical creation and its temporary existence.

 

[Flash]

Proof?

.
the physiology is dependent on universal metaphysical axioms proven through evolution.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

The best way would be to show me some life elsewhere. I'll await your proof. Let me know when you have it.

.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

the physiology representing life on earth is earth centric, what the physiology requires to exist is consistent with the initial singularity that made all existence possible. metaphysical axioms, purity ... is / are required.

You don't know jackshit. Show me where life exist elsewhere or shut the **** up.

The universe was created with the building blocks of life are else we wouldn't be here. However, we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the conditions resulting in those building blocks creating our biosphere ever existed elsewhere. It may or may not. We just don't know.

We only have one data point on the existence of life and that is here on earth. Until we get another data point we can't make extrapolations. Just wishing or hoping that life exist elsewhere because it does here may satisfy our desire to believe in something else but it is not scientifically supported.

.

You don't know jackshit. Show me where life exist elsewhere or shut the **** up.

Earth's beginning was without life, the OP does not indicate where it came from only that it occurred initially once that can be concluded equally as much extraterrestrial as natively induced or as implied a desert creationist folly ... so elsewhere is whert life on earth did originate when initiated on earth.

The universe was created with the building blocks of life are else we wouldn't be here. However, we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the conditions resulting in those building blocks creating our biosphere ever existed elsewhere. It may or may not. We just don't know.

you are again stating a fallacy, our biosphere is earth centric when in fact it also is the product of building blocks you initially claim are universal which all but states that under proper conditions everywhere in the universe will have the same results as planet earth.

We only have one data point on the existence of life and that is here on earth.

as stated before, earth initially was without life therefore your data point is not earth but an unknown location and therefore does not exist as a reference.

You need to slow down, i think maybe you read too fast. He demanded POSITIVE results from tests, not merely that the idea be testable. The idea IS testable. Your metaphysical voodoo is not.

physiology only exists physically itself metaphorically as when its source, life ends the physical component disappears never to be seen again - that is a testable conclusion for the presence of the metaphorical axioms that were employed for the physical creation and its temporary existence.

I think you are confused.

Earth developed life. It did not exist but then the right combination of chemistry and environmental conditions enabled life to evolve.

What we don't know is if the same conditions ever happened before or will ever happen again in the universe.

We just don't know. We need at least one more data point in order to make intelligent assumptions about it.

It could be that the chemistry and environmental conditions are fairly common or maybe it is extremely rare or that earth is unique. Take your pick because we are only guessing now.

My personal opinion is that microbial or other low level life probably exist elsewhere. However, there are many very unique things about earth that allowed microbial life to evolve to a higher life form. The book that I referenced earlier describes those unique factors.

I also think that the universe is part of some intelligent design because to think otherwise is embracing the really wacko and anti science idea that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the physiology is dependent on universal metaphysical axioms proven through evolution.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

The best way would be to show me some life elsewhere. I'll await your proof. Let me know when you have it.

.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

the physiology representing life on earth is earth centric, what the physiology requires to exist is consistent with the initial singularity that made all existence possible. metaphysical axioms, purity ... is / are required.

You don't know jackshit. Show me where life exist elsewhere or shut the **** up.

The universe was created with the building blocks of life are else we wouldn't be here. However, we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the conditions resulting in those building blocks creating our biosphere ever existed elsewhere. It may or may not. We just don't know.

We only have one data point on the existence of life and that is here on earth. Until we get another data point we can't make extrapolations. Just wishing or hoping that life exist elsewhere because it does here may satisfy our desire to believe in something else but it is not scientifically supported.

.

You don't know jackshit. Show me where life exist elsewhere or shut the **** up.

Earth's beginning was without life, the OP does not indicate where it came from only that it occurred initially once that can be concluded equally as much extraterrestrial as natively induced or as implied a desert creationist folly ... so elsewhere is whert life on earth did originate when initiated on earth.

The universe was created with the building blocks of life are else we wouldn't be here. However, we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the conditions resulting in those building blocks creating our biosphere ever existed elsewhere. It may or may not. We just don't know.

you are again stating a fallacy, our biosphere is earth centric when in fact it also is the product of building blocks you initially claim are universal which all but states that under proper conditions everywhere in the universe will have the same results as planet earth.

We only have one data point on the existence of life and that is here on earth.

as stated before, earth initially was without life therefore your data point is not earth but an unknown location and therefore does not exist as a reference.

You need to slow down, i think maybe you read too fast. He demanded POSITIVE results from tests, not merely that the idea be testable. The idea IS testable. Your metaphysical voodoo is not.

physiology only exists physically itself metaphorically as when its source, life ends the physical component disappears never to be seen again - that is a testable conclusion for the presence of the metaphorical axioms that were employed for the physical creation and its temporary existence.

I think you are confused.

Earth developed life. It did not exist but then the right combination of chemistry and environmental conditions enabled life to evolve.

What we don't know is if the same conditions ever happened before or will ever happen again in the universe.

We just don't know. We need at least one more data point in order to make intelligent assumptions about it.

It could be that the chemistry and environmental conditions are fairly common or maybe it is extremely rare or that earth is unique. Take your pick because we are only guessing now.

My personal opinion is that microbial or other low level life probably exist elsewhere. However, there are many very unique things about earth that allowed microbial life to evolve to a higher life form. The book that I referenced earlier describes those unique factors.

I also think that the universe is part of some intelligent design because to think otherwise is embracing the really wacko and anti science idea that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

.
some of which I agree ... though energy / matter are not so difficult to believe always to have existed in one state or another or at the point of singularity from one to another in purity. BB being a cyclical event.

I think you are confused.

physiology is not native to this planet is what I believe you are confused about.

 

[Flash]

[QU


physiology is not native to this planet is what I believe you are confused about.

Basic carbon chemistry is not native to earth but the environmental conditions that allowed the chemistry to evolve into life on earth may or may not be elsewhere. That is what we don't know because we only have one data point.

I am not going to go into all the factors but if you would read the book that I referenced earlier you would get a better feel for the happenstance factors that led to life evolving on earth. Everything from our position in the galaxy to having the moon to having plate tectonics and to having an abnormally large iron core due to the happenstance collision that created the moon to provide a strong magnetic field to protect life from radiation.

It may be that every other planet in the universe is a sterile rock world like Mercury, Venus and Mars or a gas planet like Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. Or it could be that earth like planets are a dime a dozen. We just don't know at this time. Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

However, we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the conditions resulting in those building blocks creating our biosphere ever existed elsewhere.

100% incorrect. We know exactly how these heavier elsments came to be and know the exist in abundance throughout the universe. It would be absurd to believe that there are not literally trillions of planets, past present and future, throughout the universe with similar abundance of these elements as there was and is on Earth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then lets hear no more tales of imaginary life that arose and then dies off with no trace. Or extraterrestrial life. Unless you can provide a test for it with positive results.

That's bad science and bad logic. We do not rule out the possibility that something exists, when everything we know tells us it is possible, just because we have not found it, yet. Thank goodness scientists don't give up so easily or employ such poor logic!

You are now done with "testable" theories? You were going to limit yourself to such...remember? Any tests result in life outside out family tree? I know plenty that result in a negative.

And no we dont rule it out. We simply act on the evidence..."testable" evidence if you like. Keep looking if you like because that is what we do. But there is a reason to keep looking. Namely that nothing has been found yet.

And nothing we "know tells us it is possible". In fact, from what we know (that searching high and low finds none) it is looking if not impossible then very unlikely.

Nothing I said is not testable. And no, you are not acting on the evidence, as the evidence in now way whatsoever rules out the formation of other types of life here of elsewhere. In fact, the evidence we have at our disposal indicates that life of many types has and will form elsewhere, and possibly did so here. You are still making the same logical error. You are 100% wrong in your claims and your incorrect justification for them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We don't prove other life doesn't exist. That is simply a fact...until proven otherwise.

Embarrassingly stupid and wrong, and no scientist or rational person would ever make such an absurd claim. All of our theoretical evidence points to the idea that other types of life exist in the universe. You clearly have an agenda, and it is making you say very wrong things.

 

[DOTR]

Nothing I said is not testable. And no, you are not acting on the evidence, as the evidence in now way whatsoever rules out the formation of other types of life here of elsewhere. In fact, the evidence we have at our disposal indicates that life of many types has and will form elsewhere, and possibly did so here. You are still making the same logical error. You are 100% wrong in your claims and your incorrect justification for them.

Yet every possible test yields a negative. Accept it. Out tests show only one event. In the universe...for its entire history.

 

[DOTR]

Embarrassingly stupid and wrong, and no scientist or rational person would ever make such an absurd claim. All of our theoretical evidence points to the idea that other types of life exist in the universe. You clearly have an agenda, and it is making you say very wrong things.

What theoretical evidence? Are theories even evidence? And even if they are do we even know for sure how life started?
"Life started here..one time..so it must have started there..multiple times"
Does that sound very convincing to you?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

"Life started here..one time..." ...

just curious what you are claiming, a specific being as the first life or a generic template that all future life evolved from -

as being the template would suffice for whatever planet accommodated "life" the same template would be a universal supplement wherever in the universe it occurred or "landed" and lends credence for there being only one event as you claim for all planets throughout the universe. being the same.

still, if derived on earth what are you talking about was it carnivorous or photosynthetic ... at what time in its development.

if you would read the book that I referenced earlier you would get a better feel for the happenstance factors that led to life evolving on earth.

... for the happenstance factors

and all those might not just as well have been one step away from preventing life on earth ... or a multitude of other factors on each planet would not bear the same results given the basic necessity for physiological development which itself could prove radically adaptable to a multitude of various factors.

 

[DOTR]

.


just curious what you are claiming, a specific being as the first life or a generic template that all future life evolved from -

still, if derived on earth what are you talking about was it carnivorous or photosynthetic ... at what time in its development.

Im not claiming either really. Dont know enough to.

Photosynthesis and carnivorous behavior developed later obviously. But ATP Synthase was preserved throughout all life.[/QUOTE]

 

[BreezeWood]

.


just curious what you are claiming, a specific being as the first life or a generic template that all future life evolved from -

still, if derived on earth what are you talking about was it carnivorous or photosynthetic ... at what time in its development.

Im not claiming either really. Dont know enough to.

Photosynthesis and carnivorous behavior developed later obviously. But ATP Synthase was preserved throughout all life.

.
The Origin of Life

It is undeniable that life started once on Earth. Only once. A one time event never repeated.
What are the implications of that fact?

just curious what you are claiming, a specific being as the first life or a generic template that all future life evolved from -

Im not claiming either really. Dont know enough to.

What are the implications of that fact?


by your answers it seems a purely rhetorical question ... generically how many "life" conditions are there but one.

... life's origin requires adherence to the metaphysical axioms for a physical physiology to exist. tectonic plates or not.

 

[ding]

I invite the posters here to define "life". You will be left with two paths in this argument:

1) You define it as the life as we know it, thus trapping yourself in a circular fallacy when you argue only life as we know it ever existed, as that is all we know. This argument can be flushed immediately.

2) You define it by behaviors and properties, like locomotion or replication. If you take this tack, you will then be tasked with ruling out all other possibilities that any other physical systems could ever have displayed these properties, other than the life we know of, if you are to rule out the things I am saying. This is an impossible task, and you will fail, leaving my arguments completely intact.

Characteristics of living things

The 7 Characteristics of Life

 

[ding]

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." George Wald - Scientific American, August, 1954.

What a load of shit. You have more chance of flying to the moon without oxygen than there being a God. Life formed over millions and millions of years. There is ample evidence. There is not one shred of evidence of a god. And let us not forget, that most of YOUR god's anecdotes can be traced back to other civilisation's beliefs. That is also a fact.

Your problem is that you don't look at the whole picture. I don't see how it can be any other way.

 

[ding]

Think about it. The greatest engineering marvel in the history of the universe with complexity unrivaled by anything in the universe just randomly assembled itself?

As opposed to a super being that randomly assembled itself?

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

 

[Taz]

Think about it. The greatest engineering marvel in the history of the universe with complexity unrivaled by anything in the universe just randomly assembled itself?

As opposed to a super being that randomly assembled itself?

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Even eternal had to start somewhere.

 

[ding]

Think about it. The greatest engineering marvel in the history of the universe with complexity unrivaled by anything in the universe just randomly assembled itself?

As opposed to a super being that randomly assembled itself?

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Even eternal had to start somewhere.

By definition.... no, it doesn't.

 

[Taz]

Think about it. The greatest engineering marvel in the history of the universe with complexity unrivaled by anything in the universe just randomly assembled itself?

As opposed to a super being that randomly assembled itself?

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Even eternal had to start somewhere.

By definition.... no, it doesn't.

Even something eternal had to have a beginning because it can only be eternal going forward, and can't have existed before it first existed.

 

[DOTR]

Even something eternal had to have a beginning because it can only be eternal going forward, and can't have existed before it first existed.

Some things will always be shrouded to the secular mind.