No offense, but this is science fiction. 50 years ago maybe we could have speculated about non-organic life, but now that we know the complexity of what actually occurs in a living system any thoughts of non-carbon based life can be dismissed. No serious scientist would consider it possible for there to be plasma based life. Life requires complex chemistry. Complex chemistry is for the most part not possible in plasma.
please read: iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7_8_263.html before dismissing these ideas.
Why should life require complex-chemistry when field interactions between "plasma fluxes and grains" meet all our criteria for life? 50 years ago we didn't have the technology to study (and we weren't aware of) the self-organization of plasmas. No offense, but the sci-fi of that time was focused on flying saucers and humanoid aliens (which you seem to be as well)... almost an anthropomorphization of ETI.
I guess these guys aren't "serious scientists" though? Google them, theyre all extremely well respected and published phds.
V N Tsytovich & N G Gusein-Zade General Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia
G E Morfill & B A Klumov Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik, Germany
V E Fortov
Insitute of Physics of Extremal State of Matter, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, Russia
S V Vladimirov School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Australia
and here are their conclusions:
Hot Gas mimics life in space:
space.com/scienceastronomy/070814_plasma_life.html
"We've always assumed that life was a planetary phenomenon. Only on planets would you have the liquids thought necessary for the chemistry of life. So if you could have life in the hot gases of a star, or in the hot, interstellar gas that suffuses the space between the stars, well, not only would that be 'life as we don't know it' but it might be the most common type of life."
From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter
iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7_8_263.html
"Our analysis shows that if helical dust structures are formed in space, they can have bifurcations as memory marks and duplicate each other, and they would reveal a faster evolution rate by competing for `food' (surrounding plasma fluxes). These structures can have all necessary features to form `inorganic life'. This should be taken into account for formulation of a new SETI-like program based not only on astrophysical observations but also on planned new laboratory experiments, including those on the ISS. In the case of the success of such a program one should be faced with the possibility of resolving the low rate of evolution of organic life by investigating the possibility that the inorganic life `invents' the organic life."
Last edited by brother_of_invention; 1st July 2009 at 03:33 PM.
please read: iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7_8_263.html before dismissing these ideas.
Why should life require complex-chemistry when field interactions between "plasma fluxes and grains" meet all our criteria for life?
They don't. Read the book I posted. You will start to understand the issues at hand. I'm afraid you will not find any exobiologists who seriously consider their claim.
They don't. Read the book I posted. You will start to understand the issues at hand. I'm afraid you will not find any exobiologists who seriously consider their claim.
I too have studied molecular biology, there's no need to condescend.
However it doesn't apply to this argument, because this 'weird life' does not require cells, DNA, or RNA. It would be 'molecular chauvinism' to assume that molecules are required at all (atomic nuclei or other structures might assemble in totally unfamiliar ways). Molecular dynamics is more pertinent to this theory than molecular biology, as attraction wells in plasma fluxes can organize matter just as well as chemical bonds.
You haven't formulated a specific argument against this theory. Instead you've referred me to your 1400 page molecular-bio textbook and made empty appeals to authority:
"I'm afraid you will not find any exobiologists who seriously consider their claim"
"No serious scientist would consider it possible for there to be plasma based life."
Why restrict possibilities of ETI? You are quick to say that dusty plasmas don't qualify as life, but why not? What are your 'issues at hand'? Which of the following criteria (provided by wikipedia:life) is not met by self-organized dusty plasmas?
why would it have any impact? i'm assuming you're asking this from the standpoint of the economy of salvation.
I don't know. As has been said, the Bible is silent on it. I assume Christ would reveal himself and His plan for salvation to any intelligent life that existed. Personally, I don't believe ETI exists. Maybe I'm wrong. One thing is for certain and that is your position on ETI is irrelevant to your salvation.
I assume Christ would reveal himself and His plan for salvation to any intelligent life that existed.
Of course we needn't assume all life needs salvation. Maybe somewhere there's a planet with descendants from a different Adam and Eve, and they didn't eat the apple. Maybe there's a parallel world which turned out the way we were supposed to.
Or there could be life which is fallen but Christ somehow works with a different plan.
Maybe there are worlds where the drama has already played out; worlds that began and ended before ours. Or worlds to begin after ours.
There's lots of possibilities. We just know the Christian faith is intended at least for us Earthlings. A lot of atheists criticize Christianity as egocentric or human-centric, but it's not so at all. Until we meet little green men, it's the atheists who have no choice but to hold a human-centric view.
Of course we needn't assume all life needs salvation. Maybe somewhere there's a planet with descendants from a different Adam and Eve, and they didn't eat the apple. Maybe there's a parallel world which turned out the way we were supposed to.
Romans 8 tells us that the whole of creation is in bondage to decay and is longing for it's redemption. I'm not sure that other planets or intelligent lifeforms would be excluded from that.
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
Romans 8 tells us that the whole of creation is in bondage to decay and is longing for it's redemption. I'm not sure that other planets or intelligent lifeforms would be excluded from that.
That could be right, or "creation" could possibly refer just to Earth. The angels are created and most didn't fall.
Of course we needn't assume all life needs salvation. Maybe somewhere there's a planet with descendants from a different Adam and Eve, and they didn't eat the apple. Maybe there's a parallel world which turned out the way we were supposed to.
Or there could be life which is fallen but Christ somehow works with a different plan.
Maybe there are worlds where the drama has already played out; worlds that began and ended before ours. Or worlds to begin after ours.
Your examples boil down to two basic sets: needing salvation and those not needing salvation.
I've always understood free will and our physical bodies (as Paul points out so well) fundamental to our need for salvation. ETI implies both.
There's lots of possibilities. We just know the Christian faith is intended at least for us Earthlings.
What other kind of faith does Christ offer?
A lot of atheists criticize Christianity as egocentric or human-centric, but it's not so at all. Until we meet little green men, it's the atheists who have no choice but to hold a human-centric view.
I've debated atheists extensively and have never heard this accusation. I've been called many less then choice words by atheists, but never human-centric.
Linear Mode
