Probability Alien Life Watching Us Cannot be Determined

Then you were trying to mislead earlier when you presented this as the creation of life, yet you knew it was just a precursor to DNA.

 

Life obviously was created, so when neither option 1 nor option 2 present a good explanation, then there has to be an option 3. And since we don't know what option 3 is, then "I don't know" is the scientific answer, and the honest answer.

 

I suppose I was Misleading you...….when you put it that way. I guess we will just have to wait a couple years.

 

Proteins are one of the building blocks of life.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AP_Biology/The_Chemical_Building_Blocks_of_Life

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987117301305

 

Please provide credible peer reviewed scientific data to support that alleged hypothesis.

 

Granted...we do not "Know" what sparked life but we have very compelling indicators as to what led to it and they all involve Abiogenesis or Pans Spermia. No indicators beyond a story in a book in a virtual library of similar books within the fiction section exists that say or hint otherwise. The likely hood of the "God did it" hypothesis being advanced to theory are NIL.

 

Probably life is a artifact of thermodynamics as molecules find interesting ways to dissipate all the energy pouring down on us from the sun. The question is how often does the Universe find consciousness a useful solution to shedding energy. Is it a common solution or relatively unique?

There is no need to invoke a god though. One can see elementary organic molecules finding unique pathways to go from high energy to low energy states. Lipid bicells surrounding organic molecules to protect hydrophobic molecules from an aqueous environment would probably be a good intermediate step. The rest is just physics and chemistry.

I once had a professor who said at the start of every semester that you can answer any question in science with the statement that the Universe tends to move from high energy to low energy. Still can't use that as an answer on exams - alas.

None of this means consciousness is not a mysterious and wonderful event that we are close to understanding though.

 

Its not life. They did not create life. And thats the point. Stop obfuscating and stick to the point.

 

I don't know if life probably manifested from that hypothesis or not. I would have to see enough evidence, preferably from experiments, that would support it sufficiently. All that I know is that somehow an improbable event happened, and within the very nature of that, was a way, a means to evolve into a huge amount of different life forms. Very complex life forms. And one of those life forms has a consciousness, that can investigate its origins and create ideas about that.

And then the folly of some materialists wanting to negate the consciousness. As a by product of a brain. Which they use in order to make claims about consciousness! ha ha ha

 

One word folks....Lipids.

 

Another interesting process is self-replication or even self-assembly. It like watching a miracle happen to observe microtubules self-assemble within a cell spontaneously. All that is really happening is matter organizing to reduce charge or electro-static tension by placing similar charge as far away as possible from each other but it looks like creation itself from simulations.

Another is self-similarity. For whatever reason, nature tends towards repeating self-similar forms based on somewhat simple mathematics iterated over ond over again.

If you look at fractal geometry, you find it over and over again both in the living and unanimate. This is apperent from observing the shape of coastlines to the branching of trees to the structure of capillaries to the way music and art is structured to be pleasing to the eye or ear.

No one knows why this is, but it appears to be hardwired into the fabric of the Universe.

Really remarkable when you stop and ponder it all.

 

No, they are fake by any standard, not just mine. Your claims require not just evidence (of which you have not a shred), but EXTRAORDINARY evidence. I have made no such extraordinary claims, and everything i have said has been sourced right here in this thread. Do not attempt to put your wild , unsupported claims on the same shelf as my mundane, well-evidenced claims. You only serve to highlight the nutty nature of your own claims to do so.

 

Sure we do. Those forms arise simply from the selection acted upon physical systems by the physical laws of the universe. For example, an arch is stronger and more stable than a U Frame, relative to the amoint of material used, anywhere and everywhere in the universe. Spheroids emerge due to gravity everywhere in the universe. Carbon Bonds are tetrahedral, everywhere.

The Fibonacci sequence appears in spirals, because this sequence forms a spiral. Why should that be any less true of life than of any other physical or mathematical system? Life is just a physical system, itself.

 

And here is a concise debunk of that hoax:

https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/more-alien-nonsense-the-lolladoff-plate/

 

Which you literally just made up.

 

You need to come to terms with the fact that this is not only bad evidence, but in fact the worst kind of evidence which exists.

 

Made up nonsense.

Same.

 

Now, hold on, there. We have PLAUSIBLE guesses of the actual process, which took millions of years and trillions of trillions of chemical reactions. That stands in stark contrast to any nonsensical, magical, implausible guess you might make. What's more, every time we test some of the mechanisms that would be necessary for organic chemicals to organize and replicate by physical means, our plausible guesses are confirmed as plausible.

There is no real scientific debate over the truth of abiogenesis any more than there is a scientific debate over the truth of fundamental electromagnetic theory, or the truth of the fact that the earth has a large moon and once did not. While there is still debate over how that moon formed, there is not debate over whether or not it formed, just as there is no debate over the fact that life formed where once there was none. It is irrational to assume that, because we don't know for a fact exactly HOW the moon formed, then there must be something supernatural involved.

Furthermore, we don't have to replicate the formation of life to know it happened by physical processes in a deterministic universe, as literally ALL the evidence points to the fact that every physical process in our universe follows the same determinism and laws.

Also, we don't have to recreate the ignition of a star in the lab or watch it happen in space in real time to know that stars, in fact, ignite via fusion due to pressure, itself due to gravity. We have never seen an electron, yet we know it is a fact that they exist. We do not have to watch an alpha particle leave thw nucleus of a radioactive isotope to know it is a fact that this has happened in our lab.

Your objection is a bit of a dog and pony show anyway, as you are reserving your silly standard only for the scientific conclusions which don't jibe with your preconceptions, themselves likely due to some sort of superstition.

 

Moving the goalposts as usual!

Your original FALLACIOUS allegation was this;

We DO KNOW the elements of life, one of which is PROTEIN. Replicating how proteins formed naturally is a MAJOR STEP in understanding how life ORIGINATED!

No imaginary theist "creation event" is required given what we have LEARNED through scientific research.

https://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

In essence OUR KNOWLEDGE of HOW life originates has reached a point where we are literally one experiment away from "life as WE know it".

To fallaciously allege that "we do not know" is patently ABSURD!

 

Unfortunately what should be and has been a scientific and rational exploration of possibility and discovery is tainted by religion as is too often the case. This one is particularly nasty and disturbing because (like abortion) the religious depend on and forward distraction and dishonesty as the means of arguing their case, which is never actually presented or clarified when requested. It even seems these people are too embarrassed to admit that they think God actually did the Adam & Eve bidness instead of evolution....can't say I blame them.

 

Type Tunguska, Valley of Death Russia, or the Cauldrons in Russia. There's more. I just don't care about educating fools too much.

 

Actually it is the best kind, when you get opinions from people who actually make things.

 

Wrong on almost all counts.

Its a best guess but its still a guess. Its based on very little actual knowledge, so little that "I dont know" is very valid.

Read my posts - I am not making any claim that its "supernatural". "I don't know" does not equate to supernatural, it means exactly what the words mean - there is not enough data to narrow the possibilities to firm hypotheses.

The maturity of electromagnetic theory is far, far more advanced than any theory on the creation of life. EM theory can be written and verified through numerous experiments, we can create magnets and EM fields, we can predict the effects of fields. EM theory is the basis of modern life.

Can you explain how life was created and can you create life? No and No. Not even close.

And it has nothing to do with supernatural - stop the obfuscation.

Stupidity. Read the posts. You are going on the stupid people to ignore list.

 

How was life created? Unknown. Thats simple fact. That you are so insecure you cannot admit that science is not omniscient is expected and the sign of a fanatic not a rational person.