Life came from space

[Linguofreak]

It asks for the optimal explanation, to use as little expressions and dependencies as possible.

I don't quite get what you're getting at there. Was meinen Sie auf Deutsch?

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't quite get what you're getting at there. Was meinen Sie auf Deutsch?

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html

 

[Quick_Nick]

Take one planet, cook to an internal temperature of 5700K, stir in various proteins and nucleotide bases, wait a few billion years.

 

[Linguofreak]

From the article

Since the force between the planets and the sun determines the motion of the former and both theories posit the same type of force, the predicted motion of the planets will be identical for both theories. the second theory, however, has additional baggage (the will of the aliens) which is unnecessary for the description of the system.

The problem is that throwing out "baggage unnecessary for the description of the system" only works when the two theories are built upon identical observations and make identical predictions. Often Occam's razor is erroneously used by proponents of one theory to dismiss an other theory even though the second differs in the observations that it is based upon or the predictions that it makes.

 

[Eagle]

From the article

The problem is that throwing out "baggage unnecessary for the description of the system" only works when the two theories are built upon identical observations and make identical predictions. Often Occam's razor is erroneously used by proponents of one theory to dismiss an other theory even though the second differs in the observations that it is based upon or the predictions that it makes.

Well I think the observations/predictions are about the same, that is life appears spontaneously on young Earthlike planets. The only difference would be if the exogenesis theory required a non-Earthlike environment. And its debatable if interesting organic molecules (that have been detected in space) count.

Otherwise life that was native to Earth would be indistinguishable from life seeded onto Earth. That is, until we find some exolife to compare.

And, like the article said. Occam's Razor does not have any guarantee for correctness.

 

[TSPenguin]

First off, nice thread necro. Nearly 9 months. Good job.

He ressurected this thread with valuable information pertinent to the topic. This does not fall under the necro rule and he avoided zombiehood. Mission success.

 

[NukeET]

Well I think the observations/predictions are about the same, that is life appears spontaneously on young Earthlike planets. The only difference would be if the exogenesis theory required a non-Earthlike environment. And its debatable if interesting organic molecules (that have been detected in space) count.

Otherwise life that was native to Earth would be indistinguishable from life seeded onto Earth. That is, until we find some exolife to compare.

And, like the article said. Occam's Razor does not have any guarantee for correctness.

Observations? Try it in the singular. We only have the one.

 

[Hielor]

He ressurected this thread with valuable information pertinent to the topic. This does not fall under the necro rule and he avoided zombiehood. Mission success.

Necromancy is the resurrection of the dead. It's still a thread necro, just not an illegal one

 

[Ghostrider]

Actually necromancy deals with divination through the summoning of the dead, and zombification is not resurrection. Resurrection is the full restoration to life of a deceased person, body and soul, with complete recovery of the original personality. Zombification is simple reanimation of the body which is governed by the lower brain functions, with no recovery of the original person.

Learn to distinguish the stuff, it may well keep you out of Azkaban.

 

[n122vu]

To go off-topic just a bit, I just want to say that I noticed something about six months ago that has really bothered me. It seems every time something of this nature, or a political or environmental nature, comes up in a thread, the conversation turns to creationism. That in itself is not the problem. The problem I have is that I can't help but notice a strong, beligerent anti-creationist atmosphere on this forum. Now, granted, from a scientific standpoint, creationism doesn't have that many legs to stand on, but it does have some. And for that reason, I feel it has to be considered as a possible theory, and as a result must be given serious credit to foster a truly objective atmosphere. I have no issues with those that do not agree with creationism or evolution either way, but I do have issues with those that make others feel like their views are childish or ignorant. If you have scientific evidence to back up a theory, great, cite your source and go on. But don't deman others for their views just because they don't have all the information at their fingertips.

Just my two cents worth.
n122vu

 

[Ghostrider]

Well, my science professor used to be Jesuit priest, and he never ever ever gave creationism any credit. I believe I can safely do likewise.

 

[DarkWanderer]

To go off-topic just a bit, I just want to say that I noticed something about six months ago that has really bothered me. It seems every time something of this nature, or a political or environmental nature, comes up in a thread, the conversation turns to creationism. That in itself is not the problem....

Unfortunately, facts are that people trying to argue on such topics in most cases are either ignorant either childish - not talking of even more frequent psychiatric cases. Forums just aren't a place to talk about serious questions.

 

[Hielor]

It seems every time something of this nature, or a political or environmental nature, comes up in a thread, the conversation turns to creationism.

This thread deals with the origin of life. What did you expect?

The problem I have is that I can't help but notice a strong, beligerent anti-creationist atmosphere on this forum.

Because this forum by its very nature attracts scientifically-minded people.

Now, granted, from a scientific standpoint, creationism doesn't have that many legs to stand on, but it does have some.

No. It doesn't. The Christian view of creationism has as many scientific legs to stand on as the "theory" that God sneezed and we are all the descendents of His holy nose goo--that is to say, none. There's a reason it's called religious "faith"--because religious people continue to believe their religious stuff without having any evidence to support it. It's "faith."

The biggest thing that makes creationism (and religion in general) non-scientific is that it cannot be disproved. Every time you say "Oh, here's a scientific explanation for how things work" the religious reply is "That's how God wants you to see it" or some other ridiculousness. Scientific hypotheses must be disprovable, and you cannot disprove the existance of God--therefore, God or creationism is not a scientific theory.

It's like if I tell you that I have a pink unicorn in my garage, but it's invisble and weightless and undetectable by any means. Most sane people (even religious ones) would agree that that's absurd and there is no such pink unicorn in my garage, yet religious people believe in God and creation with no more evidence than there is of my unicorn. If I wrote a several-thousand-page novel about my unicorn, would that make it real? No, but that's all that it takes for religious people to believe.

And for that reason, I feel it has to be considered as a possible theory, and as a result must be given serious credit to foster a truly objective atmosphere.

Every religion has its own story of creation. If we objectively consider one, then we have to objectively consider them all. That's why teaching the Genesis story in schools is absurd--it has just as much chance of being correct as any other religion's tale of creation.

Religions were created by humans in an attempt to explain the world around them, because the human race has an overpowering desire to understand their surroundings. Lacking any scientific tools, primitive man turned to mythology to explain the world around them. It is a sad fact that such mythology lives on.

I have no issues with those that do not agree with creationism or evolution either way, but I do have issues with those that make others feel like their views are childish or ignorant.

If someone's views are childish and ignorant (such as when they present religious beliefs as scientific facts), what's the problem with informing them of that fact?

If you have scientific evidence to back up a theory, great, cite your source and go on. But don't deman others for their views just because they don't have all the information at their fingertips.

And if one doesn't have scientific evidence to back up his "theory" (which creationism cannot), they should not present it as if it's scientifically founded.

 

[n122vu]

My apologies. I thought the thread was about the contents of the article and the fact that the materials that make up DNA and RNA may have come from space, as opposed to them forming from materials already found on Earth. In my mind, the only scientific dispute here is whether the chemical building blocks of life originated on Earth or were the result of an asteroid collision. We know how solar systems and planets form (or at least we think we know, for the most part because we see it happening in other systems through Hubble, etc, so we can assume ours formed the same way. Whether agreeing on the existence of God or not, we do know that the laws of physics apply and that certain elements and chemicals could have come from another celestial body.

And if one doesn't have scientific evidence to back up his "theory" (which creationism cannot), they should not present it as if it's scientifically founded.

This feels to me as if you have already predetermined in your mind that because creationism has not yet presented scientfic evidence supporting the theory, that it never will. Is this an accurate interpretation?

Because this forum by its very nature attracts scientifically-minded people.

No problem with that. To be expected. I am a scientifically-minded person myself. Given the opportunity to redo some things in my life I would probably go back and study physics academically right out of high school. Nobody's fault but mine.

There's a reason it's called religious "faith"--because religious people continue to believe their religious stuff without having any evidence to support it. It's "faith."

No argument on this one. I agree 100%. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith in and of itself cannot be measured by an instrument, therefore is not valid scientific evidence.

Again, my issue is not with science. I love science and am fascinated more every day by the universe around me. I guess what it really boils down to is that it frustrates me to see those that have creationist views berated as childish and ignorant simply because they can't prove their beliefs. I know it's to be expected, and I should just man-up and quit whining, but once in a while I feel the urge to sound off. I'll step out now and ponder your opinion.

 

[MAraujo]

The funny thing about this is that the creationism accusations were largely posted here to counter my arguments, and stubbornly so. I'm not a creationist nor do I believe that any aspect of the universe can be predicted or understood without the use of cold hard math. I'm a geologist and I spend way too much time in my work trying to counter such unfounded theories. Its hilarious that I even have to answer to such accusations. I tried to bring to the table some very simplified principles (maybe too simplified) and a few individuals jumped on it as a chance to hurl personal insults and condescending language. As is usually the case, people that actually know something about what they are talking about and feel confident don't feel the need to pump their own ego. I did however get some of the type of discussion I was hoping for, good thought-out counter arguments, and I appreciate that. I'm new to this forum, I came here to find out what kind of people love orbiter as much as I do, I thought they must be interesting. And I bet many of you are. Maybe I misunderstood the level of discussion around here.

P.S. Should I have created a new thread for this? I thought it would be redundant but a few people have called it necro.

 

[Eagle]

P.S. Should I have created a new thread for this? I thought it would be redundant but a few people have called it necro.

Necromancy is a much more tolerable crime than duplicate threads. If its not on the first or so page of threads in the subforum then a new thread is fine. Otherwise its just nitpickery.

 

[Hielor]

My apologies. I thought the thread was about the contents of the article and the fact that the materials that make up DNA and RNA may have come from space, as opposed to them forming from materials already found on Earth. In my mind, the only scientific dispute here is whether the chemical building blocks of life originated on Earth or were the result of an asteroid collision. We know how solar systems and planets form (or at least we think we know, for the most part because we see it happening in other systems through Hubble, etc, so we can assume ours formed the same way. Whether agreeing on the existence of God or not, we do know that the laws of physics apply and that certain elements and chemicals could have come from another celestial body.

Technically, yes, that's what the thread is about--where life came from. The origin of life. Any discussion about that will inevitably lead to an evolution vs. creationism discussion.

This feels to me as if you have already predetermined in your mind that because creationism has not yet presented scientfic evidence supporting the theory, that it never will. Is this an accurate interpretation?

Pretty much. Creationism is fundamentally founded on religious faith, not scientific evidence. In order to prove creationism, you'd have to prove the existence of a supreme being, and short of aforementioned supreme being showing up (or rearranging a few stars to spell "I AM") there's really no way to do that.

Theories should come from evidence--you take evidence and come up with a reasonable explanation for it (which is what Darwin did) that preferably doesn't involve magic. Then you set out to prove the theory. The problem with creationism is that it was thought up several thousand years ago by people who really had no idea how the world worked, they just needed some kind of explanation so they made mythologies. Any "evidence" presented for creationism at this point is suspect for bias. That's something religious people are very good at--ignoring any counter-evidence and championing the tiniest thing that supports their "theories" as being the sole truth. Nevermind that throughout history the religious viewpoint has been consistently proven wrong.

If someone were to come forth with actual scientifically founded evidence supporting the creationist view, at that point I will potentially accept it as a valid alternative. However, I have seen nothing thus far to make me think that there will be any such evidence, and creationism has been around to collect evidence far longer than evolution (and yet...it hasn't).

No problem with that. To be expected. I am a scientifically-minded person myself. Given the opportunity to redo some things in my life I would probably go back and study physics academically right out of high school. Nobody's fault but mine.

I like physics--it's the only class where you can be sitting there calculating the launch velocity and angle needed for a projectile to hit your teacher on the forehead and still have it relate to the class.

Again, my issue is not with science. I love science and am fascinated more every day by the universe around me. I guess what it really boils down to is that it frustrates me to see those that have creationist views berated as childish and ignorant simply because they can't prove their beliefs. I know it's to be expected, and I should just man-up and quit whining, but once in a while I feel the urge to sound off. I'll step out now and ponder your opinion.

If I was arguing for the existence of that pink (but invisible and undetectable) unicorn in my garage, how would you respond?

 

[Andy44]

The funny thing about this is that the creationism accusations were largely posted here to counter my arguments, and stubbornly so. I'm not a creationist nor do I believe that any aspect of the universe can be predicted or understood without the use of cold hard math. I'm a geologist and I spend way too much time in my work trying to counter such unfounded theories. Its hilarious that I even have to answer to such accusations. I tried to bring to the table some very simplified principles (maybe too simplified) and a few individuals jumped on it as a chance to hurl personal insults and condescending language. As is usually the case, people that actually know something about what they are talking about and feel confident don't feel the need to pump their own ego. I did however get some of the type of discussion I was hoping for, good thought-out counter arguments, and I appreciate that. I'm new to this forum, I came here to find out what kind of people love orbiter as much as I do, I thought they must be interesting. And I bet many of you are. Maybe I misunderstood the level of discussion around here.

P.S. Should I have created a new thread for this? I thought it would be redundant but a few people have called it necro.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. Some folks here jumped the gun on the creationist accusations a little too quickly.

They do have a point to argue, that you need to found your arguments on science, but there is no need to be nasty about it. Don't get discouraged, though, we are mostly a bunch of good guys.

Also, I am with Heilor on the creationism business.

Creationism is not a "theory", it's a belief in something supernatural, which immediately puts it out of the realm of nature and therefore not suitable for a scientific discussion. It can neither be proven nor disproven by experiment.

A theory is an attempt to explain an observable phenomenon. There are several theories which have been put forth to fit the observations of evolving life and its possible origins, and these theories can be tested, experimented on, and ruled out in order to narrow down the answers.

 

[Urwumpe]

This feels to me as if you have already predetermined in your mind that because creationism has not yet presented scientfic evidence supporting the theory, that it never will. Is this an accurate interpretation?

Yes, you can say so. And it is OK. Why should the Christian creation myth be by any expectation be better than the creation myth of the Aborigines?

All creationism is about the Abrahamic religions - they have empty hands, but loud people. One of the loudest guys for Islamic creationism got caught having a picture of a fishing lure in his picture book against evolution as example of designed life.

 

[MAraujo]

Also, I am with Heilor on the creationism business.

Me Too. The way I see it, anything worth learning about the universe can be learned without talking to a single other human. This may seem strange because our science is so greatly enhanced by our community. But there is no reason why someone born and raised in complete isolation could not derive all of the known laws of nature experimentally with no inherent limit to accuracy. However, that same person could never-ever derive any of the particulars of a religion given infinite time and resources. (just a thought experiment, not to be taken too literally)