There is No Home in the Universe but Earth

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abiogenesis remains scientifically unproven.

Abiogenesis is a fact and a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life. Then, there was life. Abiogenesis connects these two states, just as star formation connects the states of "no star" and "star". What is not "proven" is how it happened, i.e., the Theory of Abiogenesis.

It remains scientifically unproven just like the existence of a god. We can give it a name but that in no way means we understand how it happened if we don't know how it happened then we cannot repeat the process therefore it isn't scientifically proven.

So we have the religious people theorizing that a god created life and we have others saying abiogenesis created life.

Either theory can be considered valid until we can scientifically prove the existence of a god or recreate abiogenesis.

So until we figure it out and open the box we can say that both theories are true and false at the same time.

We can also describe the star formation process in detail.

No. Star formation is an "effective theory". We , in fact, do not know exactly when and how many of the processes occur within the star and its progenitor. And whether we could describe the actions exactly or knew nothing about it at all, we would still know star formation is a fact. So this is point is kind of irrelevant. Once there was no star, then there was a star. That is enough to know star formation is a fact.

Abiogenesis is still a black box and thus the process is not understood

But it is still a fact that the process occured. Abiogenesis is a fact.

 

[danielpalos]

The Miller-Urey experiment proved the possibility of abiogenesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Miller-Urey experiment proved the possibility of abiogenesis.

Okay, but the possibility doesn't have to be proven. Once there was no life, then there was. Abiogenesis, else magic. And magic is not considered.

 

[Blues Man]

Abiogenesis remains scientifically unproven.

Abiogenesis is a fact and a foregone conclusion. Once there was no life. Then, there was life. Abiogenesis connects these two states, just as star formation connects the states of "no star" and "star". What is not "proven" is how it happened, i.e., the Theory of Abiogenesis.

It remains scientifically unproven just like the existence of a god. We can give it a name but that in no way means we understand how it happened if we don't know how it happened then we cannot repeat the process therefore it isn't scientifically proven.

So we have the religious people theorizing that a god created life and we have others saying abiogenesis created life.

Either theory can be considered valid until we can scientifically prove the existence of a god or recreate abiogenesis.

So until we figure it out and open the box we can say that both theories are true and false at the same time.

We can also describe the star formation process in detail.

No. Star formation is an "effective theory". We , in fact, do not know exactly when and how many of the processes occur within the star and its progenitor. And whether we could describe the actions exactly or knew nothing about it at all, we would still know star formation is a fact. So this is point is kind of irrelevant. Once there was no star, then there was a star. That is enough to know star formation is a fact.

Abiogenesis is still a black box and thus the process is not understood

But it is still a fact that the process occured. Abiogenesis is a fact.

It's one of any number of possibilities.

Until we crack the code of the process we don't know which of those possibilities actually happened.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's one of any number of possibilities.

Name one. Abiogenesis is simply a term for the formation of life. So i am curious as to how you think life formed without forming. This should be interesting.

 

[Blues Man]

It's one of any number of possibilities.

Name one. Abiogenesis is simply a term for the formation of life. So i am curious as to how you think life formed without forming. This should be interesting.

I'm not postulating anything I am merely pointing out that without more information that the god theory is just as viable as the abiogenesis theory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's one of any number of possibilities.

Name one. Abiogenesis is simply a term for the formation of life. So i am curious as to how you think life formed without forming. This should be interesting.

I'm not postulating anything I am merely pointing out that without more information that the god theory is just as viable as the abiogenesis theory.

That is false, for the reasons i mentioned. Magic is not as valid as a fact. Abiogenesis is a fact. At no point is it ever correct to say "god did some magic" is as valid as saying something happened via a deterministic physical process. How bizarre to say.

 

[westwall]

Besides, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to get to any place outside the solar system.

False. This is the science sectiion. If you feel like making stuff up, head to the religion section.

False? I don't believe it is practicably possible.

A nonstop flight from new york to florida was not "practicably possible" in 1850. This is what i mean.

Not quite the same scale or difficulty as traveling to another star. That's pie in the sky thinking.

No, it isn't. FTL travel is possible, and it will happen.

 

[Blues Man]

It's one of any number of possibilities.

Name one. Abiogenesis is simply a term for the formation of life. So i am curious as to how you think life formed without forming. This should be interesting.

I'm not postulating anything I am merely pointing out that without more information that the god theory is just as viable as the abiogenesis theory.

That is false, for the reasons i mentioned. Magic is not as valid as a fact. Abiogenesis is a fact. At no point is it ever correct to say "god did some magic" is as valid as saying something happened via a deterministic physical process. How bizarre to say.

Like I said we really don't know if there ever was a supreme being as his existence hasn't been proven or disproven. And when you think about it what the god theorists say the creator did was basically abiogenesis, turning the inanimate animate.

Like I said we need to actually crack the code and recreate spontaneous abiogenesis to be able to shut the door on the god theory.

 

[Blues Man]

Besides, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to get to any place outside the solar system.

False. This is the science sectiion. If you feel like making stuff up, head to the religion section.

False? I don't believe it is practicably possible.

A nonstop flight from new york to florida was not "practicably possible" in 1850. This is what i mean.

Not quite the same scale or difficulty as traveling to another star. That's pie in the sky thinking.

No, it isn't. FTL travel is possible, and it will happen.

Einstein would disagree with you.

 

[toobfreak]

In the end we have to accept that God created ONLY the earth for Mankind.

God may have created Earth as mankind's natural intended ideal home, but there are no doubt other worlds, other habitable worlds, and eventually I think, other ideal worlds out there, and we will either move out and find them, or eventually perish here on Earth from the next major impactor.

 

[ChemEngineer]

The godless know-it-alls are supremely confident that "there is no god" and "you can't prove it" but when they are asked to provide proof of no God, they stutter and stammer and offer nothing, just the same as when asked to provide proof of alien life. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" they claim of aliens, but absence of evidence of God is indeed their claim of evidence of absence.
They talk out of three or four sides of their mouths.

As to how fast humans can power a space ship, increasing the speed tenfold from today's velocities requires one hundred times as much energy, and so on as one squares the velocity. We're not going anywhere. Nobody is going to give us magic solutions to humanity's insane problems, such as men becoming women, women becoming men, and the divisive race warfare now being waged by the evil Democrat Party.

Democrat Insanity - Trump Derangement Syndrome

DemocratInsanity.blogspot.com

White Lives Don't Matter

WhiteLivesDontMatter.blogspot.com

 

[ding]

Besides, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to get to any place outside the solar system.

False. This is the science sectiion. If you feel like making stuff up, head to the religion section.

False? I don't believe it is practicably possible.

A nonstop flight from new york to florida was not "practicably possible" in 1850. This is what i mean.

Not quite the same scale or difficulty as traveling to another star. That's pie in the sky thinking.

No, it isn't. FTL travel is possible, and it will happen.

My understanding is that as the speed of an object approaches the speed of light the mass of the object approaches infinity therefore the energy required to accelerate the object approaches infinity.

What did I get wrong?

 

[toobfreak]

just the same as when asked to provide proof of alien life.

Hey Fake Chem Engineer, The search for ET life has just begun. So far, we have examined 1% of 1% of 1% of the Moon and Mars. Only the other 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe to go.

We're not going anywhere.

Certainly not you.

Exoplanet Catalog - NASA Science

This exoplanet encyclopedia — continuously updated, with more than 5,600 entries — combines interactive 3D models and detailed data on all confirmed exoplanets.

exoplanets.nasa.gov

List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's one of any number of possibilities.

Name one. Abiogenesis is simply a term for the formation of life. So i am curious as to how you think life formed without forming. This should be interesting.

I'm not postulating anything I am merely pointing out that without more information that the god theory is just as viable as the abiogenesis theory.

That is false, for the reasons i mentioned. Magic is not as valid as a fact. Abiogenesis is a fact. At no point is it ever correct to say "god did some magic" is as valid as saying something happened via a deterministic physical process. How bizarre to say.

Like I said we really don't know if there ever was a supreme being as his existence hasn't been proven or disproven. And when you think about it what the god theorists say the creator did was basically abiogenesis, turning the inanimate animate.

Like I said we need to actually crack the code and recreate spontaneous abiogenesis to be able to shut the door on the god theory.

This is absurd commentary, and here is why:

Given that logic, you would have to fully and equally doubt any scientific theory ever, no matter how well evidenced. Because if there is a god who did everything by miracles, then the scientific evidence is all deceiving and is worthless garbage.

And even then, you STILL haven't touched the facts of abiogenesis or star formation. You are simply saying they happened via miracles, if there was a god. You will have upended the scientific theories explaining how they happened, but the FACT that they happened still remains.

 

[Blues Man]

It's one of any number of possibilities.

Name one. Abiogenesis is simply a term for the formation of life. So i am curious as to how you think life formed without forming. This should be interesting.

I'm not postulating anything I am merely pointing out that without more information that the god theory is just as viable as the abiogenesis theory.

That is false, for the reasons i mentioned. Magic is not as valid as a fact. Abiogenesis is a fact. At no point is it ever correct to say "god did some magic" is as valid as saying something happened via a deterministic physical process. How bizarre to say.

Like I said we really don't know if there ever was a supreme being as his existence hasn't been proven or disproven. And when you think about it what the god theorists say the creator did was basically abiogenesis, turning the inanimate animate.

Like I said we need to actually crack the code and recreate spontaneous abiogenesis to be able to shut the door on the god theory.

This is absurd commentary, and here is why:

Given that logic, you would have to fully and equally doubt any scientific theory ever, no matter how well evidenced. Because if there is a god who did everything by miracles, then the scientific evidence is all deceiving and is worthless garbage.

And even then, you STILL haven't touched the facts of abiogenesis or star formation. You are simply saying they happened via miracles, if there was a god. You will have upended the scientific theories explaining how they happened, but the FACT that they happened still remains.

Shouldn't every theory be subject to doubt and additional testing?

That is what the scientific method is all about isn't it?

And we don't know HOW abiogenesis happened because we do not know the process by which it did.

And I never used the word miracles. You seem to think I am saying that some god created the universe and I have never once said that. I am talking about theories and whether or not more than one theory for a phenomenon can be considered valid because we have no real understanding of the phenomenon.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Shouldn't every theory be subject to doubt and additional testing?

Red herring. What you are describing is fully doubting every theory, because we cannot prove god didn't do it another way. And STILL you haven't touched the idea that abiogenesis is a fact. You can doubt star formation theory as much as you like, but you will not have argued against the fact that stars form.

And we don't know HOW abiogenesis happened because we do not know the process by which it did.

Again... We do not have to know HOW stars form to know that it is a fact that stars form. Same goes for life. Abiogenesis is a fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Einstein would disagree with you.

Not if we showed him we could do it using his physics!