Original Research--join In

[SkyWriting]

The nature of hell is much debated. The threat of eternal damnnation was a useful tool of social control with a largely uneducated and illiterate population in the days before modern science and thought. I accept that there may well be a hell though the idea has certainly been used powerfully by religions over the centuries.

I don't see any power in it, as you claim.
Any examples?

People go the the "electric chair" so to speak today...that being real, and don't avoid the behavior that sends them there.
I don't see how stories of hell would have any power over people who don't avoid the death sentence today.
Some of them are smart and others as smart as rocks. Seems that intelligence has no effect either way.

 

[SkyWriting]

She said that extraterrestrial life might exist and that using what we know via evidence of astronomy it is statistically more likely than not that there is some sort of life somewhere else in the universe, ...

Just go with the evidence. No life anywhere else.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - (Disraeli) Mark Twain

 

[Split Rock]

Just go with the evidence. No life anywhere else.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - (Disraeli) Mark Twain

How much of the galaxy or the universe have we examined for life?

 

[SkyWriting]

How much of the galaxy or the universe have we examined for life?

Enough to know that all natural laws oppose the organization of life.
We don't need to look farther than our own planet to learn that
all the laws of nature oppose life.


What percentage of your life have you spent looking for God?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Enough to know that all natural laws oppose the organization of life.

Really? Life on Earth seems to have coped with this opposition for over three billion years, so this statement seems dubious.

 

[SkyWriting]

Really? Life on Earth seems to have coped with this opposition for over three billion years, so this statement seems dubious.

So what? Have you discovered any natural laws or fibs even that produce life from non-life?

It's a well designed system. Go try to duplicate it yourself.

Here is a rock.

Let me know when you get this:

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So what? Have you discovered any natural laws or fibs even that produce life from non-life?

It's a well designed system. Go try to duplicate it yourself.

Here is a rock.

Let me know when you get this:

Ah, so it's just abiogenesis you're against. What will you do when someone does create a self-replicating molecule in their lab?

 

[Split Rock]

Enough to know that all natural laws oppose the organization of life.
We don't need to look farther than our own planet to learn that
all the laws of nature oppose life.

Natural laws do not oppose life. We have life on earth and it persists and evolves. You are making stuff up.

What percentage of your life have you spent looking for God?

Non sequitur. You claimed there is no life outside of earth because the evidence supports this conclusion. I am asking a question that pertains to the gathering of such evidence. We cannot say there is no life in other solar systems (based on the evidence) if we have not looked for it there. Please stick to the topic.

 

[EternalDragon]

How much of the galaxy or the universe have we examined for life?

What is the actual reason for doing this and spending billions on
it?

 

[SkyWriting]

Natural laws do not oppose life. We have life on earth and it persists and evolves. You are making stuff up.

Yes, all natural laws oppose life, each and every one.

1. The Law of Vibration states that everything vibrates and nothing rests.

This does not promote life.

2. The Law of Relativity states that nothing is what it is until you relate it to something.

And if you start at nothing, that is what you get.

3. The Law of Cause and Effect states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

So the non-life of the universe created life here?
Or
If life developed here, what was the opposing cause? or push?


4. The Law of Polarity states that everything has an opposite.

Life is "right handed". Go figure.

5. The Law of Rythym states that everything has a natural cycle.

The cosmos wigged and earth wagged then?

6. The Law of Gestation states that everything takes time to manifest.

So we are the beginning of life in the cosmos?

7. The Law of Transmutation states that energy moves in and out of physical form.

Lucky for us we are still here then.

 

[Loudmouth]

I find it kind of strange how you have faith and belief in something not
proven as yet, but not faith or belief in God. Which is probably that
alien life you think exists out there. Seems kind of ironic.

I always find it interesting that you try to discredit scientific theories by making them look like your beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are glibly referring to wildly speculative ideas about early life--i.e. the RNA world or protein world hypotheses, the latter including the random generation hypothesis (obviously not your favorite) and the starter-set hypothesis. Please follow such ideas out step by step and do some molecular accounting.

You first. You are the one claiming that it can't happen. Where is your math?

Until you eliminate the RNA World hypothesis, it can't be excluded from any probability calculations.

Saying that stop signals are not relevant is nothing but hand-waving. Any system of reliable information transmittal requires recognizable start and stop signals.

Evidence?

And please, face the reality that so-called nested hierarchies only support your theory when you choose the ones that support your theory! These supposed similarities provide no clue as to causal mechanisms.

When the pattern of similarities exactly matches what we would expect from the causal mechanisms of random mutation, natural selection, and common ancestry it is evidence for random mutations, natural seelction, and common ancestry. That's how evidence works.

Similarities and associations do not equal causation.

Observations consistent with specific causation is evidence for that causation.

Focus on the necessary mechanisms and do the math.

Take your own advice.

Tell me where on the imagined abiogenesis-evolution continuum that complete metabolic independence (i.e. ATP generation and usage cycles or anything similar) as well as consistent dependable information-passage to future generations via reproductive capacity began.

We dont' know when that happened which is why people continue to do the scientific research.

Where is your original research on the origin of life? Where is your evidence for your claims?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, all natural laws oppose life, each and every one.

1. The Law of Vibration states that everything vibrates and nothing rests.

This does not promote life.

2. The Law of Relativity states that nothing is what it is until you relate it to something.

And if you start at nothing, that is what you get.

3. The Law of Cause and Effect states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

So the non-life of the universe created life here?
Or
If life developed here, what was the opposing cause? or push?


4. The Law of Polarity states that everything has an opposite.

Life is "right handed". Go figure.

5. The Law of Rythym states that everything has a natural cycle.

The cosmos wigged and earth wagged then?

6. The Law of Gestation states that everything takes time to manifest.

So we are the beginning of life in the cosmos?

7. The Law of Transmutation states that energy moves in and out of physical form.

Lucky for us we are still here then.

Making stuff up is not the same as science. Perhaps you want to try again?

 

[Loudmouth]

Analyzing the statistical likelihood of alien life? I suppose a reasonable start to that endeavor would need to start with a guess, or a premise, or a hypothesis as to whether that life relied upon complex genomes using DNA or RNA. This thread was begun with a challenge regarding research which almost anyone can replicate--trying to form genes of certain lengths while considering what the natural occurrence of stop codons does.

Loudmouth persists in missing the point and instead posting naked assertions about unobservable past events. He claims to have met my challenge by producing a hypothetical genome with a small collection of genes 100 codons long (along with a vast amount of pure junk, of course). And he gives no reasonable assessment of the likelihood that simply not having a stop codon in the middle would automatically confer a usable quality to the sequence. LOL. Look up the calmodulin gene--notice how much leeway exists for mutations (essentially none--it had to have been designed perfectly from the start).

Did you forget that I met the challenge you put forth? If the challenge is not valid, then why did you propose it?

Even better is that your claim about calmodulin is false. In fact, I could easily predict that it had to be wrong because you made the claim. For whatever reason, every claim you make turns out to be false.

Is calmodulin 1 perfect? If it were perfect, or had to be perfect, surely the gene doesn't differ in other species, right? RIGHT?

Wrong.

Between chicken and human, the gene differs by about 8% at the DNA level.

Show me any kind of independently living reproducing life-form that has as its longest gene, 100 codon lengths. Get real! I proposed this example only to start the conversation and the math with a number which was easily accessible. As I stated earlier, the next step is to consider an average length gene of around 500 codons (i.e. in bacteria and archae, etc.) and the next step is to do the math on a gene with 2500 codons (no stops in the middle). This is still significantly shorter than the longest genes in bacteria!

Modern bacteria that are the end product of over 3 billion years of evolution are not a valid model for abiogenesis.

If anyone is brave enough to do the math instead of posting silly diversions, naked assertions, circular reasoning and straw men, etc., you should find that the mathematical data reveals a very very interesting conclusion--you don't have enough molecules on this earth to fund the search for such long genes. Not only that, but genomes would contain far far greater amounts of junk than they could withstand. Do the math, please.

The math for what? That modern genomes could evolve over 3 billion years?

 

[SkyWriting]

Making stuff up is not the same as science. Perhaps you want to try again?

Sure, Ill try again.

Newton’s law of cooling
Boyle’s law
Law of conservation of energy
Joule’s first and second law
The four laws of thermodynamics


- Things cool faster when hotter. So why is anything hot?
- When things are heated, they expand - So why is heat concentrated?
- Energy is constant - So starting at zero, where did energy come from?
- Where did energy come from if there is resistance to it?
- The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a chemical reaction.

If it cannot be created, why is ther energy?

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases.

If the cosmos is isolated, why would entropy decrease?
Is our Cosmos not isolated?

The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.

If you start at zero, why would life form?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure, Ill try again.

Newton’s law of cooling
Boyle’s law
Law of conservation of energy
Joule’s first and second law
The four laws of thermodynamics


- Things cool faster when hotter. So why is anything hot?

Start with that one, why don't you. Why do you think the Earth is warmer than it's surroundings? Is there anything adding heat to the Earth?

 

[SkyWriting]

Start with that one, why don't you. Why do you think the Earth is warmer than it's surroundings? Is there anything adding heat to the Earth?

What was adding heat to the Cosmos when it started?
We're discussion the laws of science.
Not why a banana rots in your pocket.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is adding heat to the Cosmos when it started?

Answer the questions.

Why do you think the Earth is warmer than it's surroundings? Is there anything adding heat to the Earth?

Follow-up question:

Do the laws of cooling allow for small areas to get warmer as long as the average temperature of the whole system goes down?

 

[SkyWriting]

Answer the questions.

Why do you think the Earth is warmer than it's surroundings? Is there anything adding heat to the Earth?

Follow-up question:

Do the laws of cooling allow for small areas to get warmer as long as the average temperature of the whole system goes down?

The earth glows with heat and picks up more from the sun.
Yes, small areas get heat from other sources and sustain life
on our planet.

So where did all this heat and energy particles transfer from
that created the cosmos? Your butt?

 

[Loudmouth]

The earth glows with heat and picks up more from the sun.

Then there is your answer. That is why the Earth is warm.

I am still waiting for the reason that life runs counter to your "law of cooling".

So where did all this heat and energy particles transfer from
that created the cosmos? Your butt?

The universe started out really hot, and has gradually cooled since then. Where that initial heat came from, no one knows, including you.