Secular Science Thinks Billions Of Planets Have Sentient Life. So Why Haven't They/We Made Contact?

[Jimmy D]

I know more about abiogenesis than you,

Proverbs 12:15

so it's just more obfuscation to claim Pasteur's experiment disproved spontaneous generation when it showed only life begats life.

See above.

Besides that you ignored the Miller-Urey experiment which is still being taught today. The results and outcry from that effectively ended chemical life or evolution, but the science textbooks don't teach that.

It showed how simple organic chemicals can form naturally from ammonia, methane, water vapor, and carbon dioxide didn't it?

That was what they set out to achieve... and they were successful.

Have you actually read what Miller or Urey say about their intentions, methodology and results? It sounds like you're just parroting creationist garbage.

Of course it doesn't "prove" abiogenesis, and NO ONE CLAIMS IT DOES.

The results and outcry from that effectively ended chemical life or evolution, but the science textbooks don't teach that.

Of course science books don't teach that... it's an idiotic claim that defies logic and reason.

I hope you see that the creation scientists have be eliminated from the discussion.

As I keep saying, they can research, experiment, publish results.... but they don't. And we go back to my original point....

What are they doing exactly, what have they achieved?

You were wrong when you claimed that they developed plasma propulsion, so what are they doing exactly to demonstrate that their "ideas" are correct?

All I'm seeing from you is misrepresentation of historical experiments, creation science in a nutshell.

Besides the Miller-Urey experiment, still being in science textbooks, I think abiogenesis is what's being taught to kids today. It's not real science, but today's kids don't know any better.

Maybe if I repeat myself enough times you can grasp this simple concept.... It showed how simple organic chemicals can form naturally from ammonia, methane, water vapor, and carbon dioxide?

That was what they set out to achieve... and they were successful.

It's a theory with no scientific methodology behind it.

Only a fool would think that after reading a few articles on AIG they know better than world renowned chemists and physicists (or any qualified and experienced scientists for that matter).

It's no wonder that people get tricked by NASA going to Mars to find aliens. Didn't I state earlier that that's the purpose of NASA going to Mars?

You may have stated it, but given how wrong you are about pretty much every topic you've bought up, who cares?

They think their advanced technology will help them find the evidence. It will likely be another lie in order to keep the billions of tax payer funding flowing to NASA.

Please demonstrate one lie, as well as being prideful and arrogant you are also bearing false witness.... Creationism is leading you down the wrong path it would seem.

One more thing, you are making claims about the possibility or not of abiogenesis, as far as I'm concerned it has not been demonstrated to have occurred as yet but to me it seems the most likely explanation.

You've spent a lot of time failing to demonstrate that it didn't occur but you have yet to present any evidence whatsoever for a viable alternative. We know that chemical reactions occur and that basic organic chemicals can occur naturally, it's been demonstrated in the lab repeatedly. What exactly are you proposing as the mechanism for the start of life? What evidence can you present? Anything?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I can see you read and understand science, but what you are not providing is observable, testable and falsifiable science and use of the scientific method like Dr. Pasteur did.

It's true that most of my posts are spent correcting your misrepresentations of science, but the examples I've mentioned are all based on observable, testable and falsifiable science and use of the scientific method.

He showed how life can only begat life. You are not demonstrating how non-life begats life.

Your misunderstanding of the context Pasteur's work has already been explained, and you've already been informed about the scientific investigations into how life might have arisen.

What you and atheist scientists are doing, since their opposition and main critics have been systematically eliminated, is fitting the research and work to the hypothesis of abiogenesis and stalling.

Fitting research and work to a hypothesis is called 'testing the hypothesis' and is part of the scientific method. It often takes a long time, a lot of hard work, patience, and persistence, before conclusions can be drawn with an appropriate level of confidence. Negative results are as important as positive results, as they narrow the field of inquiry.

RNA leading to amino acids do not become proteins outside the cell. It's scientific fact because of chirality of amino acids molecules. How "amyloid proteins," actually amyloid plaque or fibers, a part of the onset of Alzheimer's, have anything to do with it is misleading. Is that what you are referring to?

Amyloids are a class of proteinaceous aggregate, variants of which are implicated in many diseases. Here's a pop-sci summary of the amyloid research.

I can't convince you and no amount of no evidence of aliens will convince you.

The scientific position on alien life has already been explained. Unfortunately, I can't help you grasp the simple logic involved, but the lack of it does explain your persistent misunderstanding. You might find 'The Critical Thinking Toolkit' by Foresman, Fosl, & Watson helpful in understanding logic and the difference between logic and eristics.

Again, nothing observable, testable and falsifiable on this and rebutted above with formation of amino acid molecules.

See the amyloid link above.

ROTFL. I guess you missed all the NASA claims I posted all over this thread due to advanced technology. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect working in your brain.

I think that speaks for itself; the first sentence is good evidence that the second is projection.

 

[jamesbond007]

the examples I've mentioned are all based on observable, testable and falsifiable science and use of the scientific method.

ROTFL. I can see that you do not understand the scientific method. We gather facts first and then formulate a theory. NOT gather facts to fit the theory. As creation scientists have been saying all along, the facts are the facts and there are no disagreements there. Where there is SEVERE disagreements are with the interpretations.

Your misunderstanding of the context Pasteur's work has already been explained, and you've already been informed about the scientific investigations into how life might have arisen.

You can't admit abiogenesis is bogus, can you? Without it, evolution is destroyed. What about the Precambrian rabbit? I have something similar.

I also said that NASA won't find aliens because of no abiogenesis, solar wind, find tuning facts, etc. Yet, they claim they will based on advanced technology. Sounds like non-sequitur science.

Fitting research and work to a hypothesis is called 'testing the hypothesis' and is part of the scientific method. It often takes a long time, a lot of hard work, patience, and persistence, before conclusions can be drawn with an appropriate level of confidence. Negative results are as important as positive results, as they narrow the field of inquiry.

You've been getting a lot of negatives.

Amyloids are a class of proteinaceous aggregate, variants of which are implicated in many diseases. Here's a pop-sci summary of the amyloid research.

Yes, it's Alzheimer's. Since the opposition has been excluded, these people get funding for anything to show abiogenesis. For some reason, aliens seem to get more funding to the tune of $18 M in 2017 for NASA. At least, people can see aliens unless they are fake in a meteor.

The scientific position on alien life has already been explained. Unfortunately, I can't help you grasp the simple logic involved, but the lack of it does explain your persistent misunderstanding. You might find 'The Critical Thinking Toolkit' by Foresman, Fosl, & Watson helpful in understanding logic and the difference between logic and eristics.

High school stuff. Back to high school for you in 1953 for the Miller-Urey experiment. I'd go back to re-live my glory days, but I can't. It's impossible to travel back in time despite what Stephen Hawking believed in his A Briefer History of Time.

I think that speaks for itself; the first sentence is good evidence that the second is projection.

NASA made a vid of a small fish in a Martian stream darting across the screen as things they WILL find. It was panned unceremoniously by both sides, so they deleted it. NASA seems to delete a lot of these mistakes in their tweets. Like I said, I hope the Chinese get their first. Who cares about the space race anymore? They're big on evolution hm...

 

[jamesbond007]

Why are you assuming that any potential aliens would be so humanlike that they would be subject to similar concepts of sin?

They probably wouldn't be humanlike. Carbon-based, yes, but alien like. Did Adam and Eve produce panspermia? No. Of course, there are only humans as per what Genesis states.

 

[jamesbond007]

Proverbs 12:15

Did you read and take advice?

It showed how simple organic chemicals can form naturally from ammonia, methane, water vapor, and carbon dioxide didn't it?

That was what they set out to achieve... and they were successful.

Have you actually read what Miller or Urey say about their intentions, methodology and results? It sounds like you're just parroting creationist garbage.

Of course it doesn't "prove" abiogenesis, and NO ONE CLAIMS IT DOES.

It eliminated chemical abiogenesis which was my point and went over your head. Now it's organic abiogenesis, isn't it?

...

The rest is more Jimmy D palaver , but keep reading the Bible. Maybe one day it will mean something to you .

 

[jamesbond007]

Here is more evidence of atheist science ruling the science world and the creation scientists being eliminated. Encyclopedia Britannica usually tries to give equal time to creationists, but since they are not "heard" in academia, it is difficult to get the credentials to be published. For example, Miller-Urey has been rebutted.

"The Miller-Urey experiment
In 1953 American chemists Harold C. Urey and Stanley Miller tested the Oparin-Haldane theory and successfully produced organic molecules from some of the inorganic components thought to have been present on prebiotic Earth. In what became known as the Miller-Urey experiment, the two scientists combined warm water with a mixture of four gases—water vapour, methane, ammonia, and molecular hydrogen—and pulsed the “atmosphere” with electrical discharges. The different components were meant to simulate the primitive ocean, the prebiotic atmosphere, and heat (in the form of lightning), respectively. One week later Miller and Urey found that simple organic molecules, including amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), had formed under the simulated conditions of early Earth."

abiogenesis | Definition & Theory

And Jimmy D, the creation scientists only have their websites they can resort to. Wikipedia deliberately eliminates creationism and promotes atheism and atheist science. They were founded by a inappropriate content merchant.

"Before launching Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales ran a inappropriate content site network called "Bomis" that featured "Bomis Babes."

10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales

 

[Jimmy D]

Here is more evidence of atheist science ruling the science world and the creation scientists being eliminated. Encyclopedia Britannica usually tries to give equal time to creationists, but since they are not "heard" in academia, it is difficult to get the credentials to be published. For example, Miller-Urey has been rebutted.

"The Miller-Urey experiment
In 1953 American chemists Harold C. Urey and Stanley Miller tested the Oparin-Haldane theory and successfully produced organic molecules from some of the inorganic components thought to have been present on prebiotic Earth. In what became known as the Miller-Urey experiment, the two scientists combined warm water with a mixture of four gases—water vapour, methane, ammonia, and molecular hydrogen—and pulsed the “atmosphere” with electrical discharges. The different components were meant to simulate the primitive ocean, the prebiotic atmosphere, and heat (in the form of lightning), respectively. One week later Miller and Urey found that simple organic molecules, including amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), had formed under the simulated conditions of early Earth."

abiogenesis | Definition & Theory

And Jimmy D, the creation scientists only have their websites they can resort to. Wikipedia deliberately eliminates creationism and promotes atheism and atheist science. They were founded by a inappropriate content merchant.

"Before launching Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales ran a inappropriate content site network called "Bomis" that featured "Bomis Babes."

10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales

Er, doesn’t that Encylopædia entry say that the M & U experiment was successful?

LOL.

And what on Earth has an encyclopaedia/ Wikipedia got to do with the veracity of any particular branch of science?

Is that the best you can do? Seriously? Badmouthing the founder of Wikipedia? And you’ve got the nerve to accuse me of obfuscation

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

ROTFL. I can see that you do not understand the scientific method. We gather facts first and then formulate a theory. NOT gather facts to fit the theory. As creation scientists have been saying all along, the facts are the facts and there are no disagreements there. Where there is SEVERE disagreements are with the interpretations.

You appear to have no idea how science works. Basically, you formulate a hypothesis to explain an unexplained observation, then you test it; i.e. you make further observations relevant to the hypothesis to attempt to falsify it. The unexplained observation is a fact. The further observations are facts. If the hypothesis survives multiple attempts to falsify it and becomes a widely accepted explanation, it is called a theory.

There are no 'creation scientists'. There may be scientists who are creationists, but creationism is religious, not scientific. There are a number of creation pseudoscientists (e.g. Intelligent Design advocates), who push religious creationism with a thin veneer of sciency hand-waving.

You can't admit abiogenesis is bogus, can you? Without it, evolution is destroyed.

I don't know if abiogenesis is bogus - but it seems unlikely, given the progress that's been made to date.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the field should be aware that the ToE doesn't depend on abiogenesis. Readers may draw their own conclusions...

What about the Precambrian rabbit? I have something similar.

How exciting; does it have fur or feathers?

I also said that NASA won't find aliens because of no abiogenesis, solar wind, find tuning facts, etc. Yet, they claim they will based on advanced technology.

No, they don't.

You've been getting a lot of negatives.

I finished my science career years ago; but, as I said, negative results are important - multiple failures to falsify is strong support for a hypothesis.

NASA made a vid of a small fish in a Martian stream darting across the screen as things they WILL find. It was panned unceremoniously by both sides, so they deleted it. NASA seems to delete a lot of these mistakes in their tweets.

Citation?

I don't think any space scientist would claim they will find life, let alone fish(!) - and you do seem to have persistent difficulty distinguishing between potentiality and actuality, fiction and reality.

 

[Jimmy D]

And Jimmy D, the creation scientists only have their websites they can resort to. Wikipedia deliberately eliminates creationism and promotes atheism and atheist science. They were founded by a inappropriate content merchant.

"Before launching Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales ran a inappropriate content site network called "Bomis" that featured "Bomis Babes."

10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales

I urge anyone who isn’t too squeamish to have a look at that bizarre link.

Who knew Wikipedia distributed child inappropriate content?

What a bunch of right wing paranoid conspiracy garbage.

 

[Strathos]

They probably wouldn't be humanlike. Carbon-based, yes, but alien like. Did Adam and Eve produce panspermia? No. Of course, there are only humans as per what Genesis states.

There are plenty of creatures on earth other than humans. If there are creatures elsewhere in the universe they're probably even less like us.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Wikipedia deliberately eliminates creationism and promotes atheism and atheist science. They were founded by a inappropriate content merchant.

"Before launching Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales ran a inappropriate content site network called "Bomis" that featured "Bomis Babes."

10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales

Coo, talk about 'poisoning the well' - an article by the ever 'popular' Mike Adams, conspiracy theorist and executive director of the “Consumer Wellness Research Center”...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I urge anyone who isn’t too squeamish to have a look at that bizarre link.

Who knew Wikipedia distributed child inappropriate content?

The real allegation is that the company that owns Wikipedia distributed child inappropriate content...

What a bunch of right wing paranoid conspiracy garbage.

Indeed!

 

[SelfSim]

You can't admit abiogenesis is bogus, can you? Without it, evolution is destroyed.

I don't know if abiogenesis is bogus - but it seems unlikely, given the progress that's been made to date.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the field should be aware that the ToE doesn't depend on abiogenesis. Readers may draw their own conclusions...

I'll weigh in on this .. a testable hypothesis (like Abiogenesis) is useful, because research into it produces tangible information about biochemical processes. There's plenty of objective evidence to support this.

The principle of Evolution requires as a minimum, an error-prone self replication mechanism. This is also a convenient way to distinguish the boundary between the topic of Abiogenesis and the principle of Evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

I'll weigh in on this .. a testable hypothesis (like Abiogenesis) is useful, because research into it produces tangible information about biochemical processes. There's plenty of objective evidence to support this.

The principle of Evolution requires as a minimum, an error-prone self replication mechanism. This is also a convenient way to distinguish the boundary between the topic of Abiogenesis and the principle of Evolution.

Except that Creationists tend to lump them (along with other scientific disciplines) into the same general category: anything which contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. To them, evolution without abiogenesis is logic without a premise.

 

[SelfSim]

Except that Creationists tend to lump them (along with other scientific disciplines) into the same general category: anything which contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. To them, evolution without abiogenesis is logic without a premise.

Sure ..
Of course, logic is not science. Appropriate use of logic in science, calls for testing of posits. Nothing is ever taken as just being 'true'.
Thus, Abiogenesis is just one big hypothesis under test, as far as the principle of Evolution is concerned.

 

[jamesbond007]

There are no 'creation scientists'. There may be scientists who are creationists, but creationism is religious, not scientific. There are a number of creation pseudoscientists (e.g. Intelligent Design advocates), who push religious creationism with a thin veneer of sciency hand-waving.

There are several creation scientists working at AIG, ICR, creation.com and others. The rest in the public sector keep their science to themselves or else risk losing their jobs over questioning evolution. You are way mistaken about it being "religious." It goes to show that you follow the mantra and can't figure out what is real science and what is fake. You spout a lot of malarkey. Based on what you "think" is the scientific method, but far from it. That's why I questioned evolution in 2008 - 2011. It's your side that is using the magic with universe from invisible particles that do not follow the laws of physics, multiverses, abiogenesis, belief in aliens, belief that humans came from monkeys (monkeys aren't even bipedal) and birds from dinosaurs, cosmic inflation, panspermia, etc. It's all made up baloney. It's magic. It's "faith-based" atheist science. Nothing is observable.

I don't know if abiogenesis is bogus - but it seems unlikely, given the progress that's been made to date.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the field should be aware that the ToE doesn't depend on abiogenesis. Readers may draw their own conclusions...

First, spontaneous generation was rendered pseudoscience. Next came abiogenesis by chemical generation. You might as well toss in abiogenesis organic generation. 3 strikes and you're out. No wonder the atheist scientists have started believing in multiverses. It doesn't happen in our universe, but it could happen in another.

I don't know if abiogenesis is bogus - but it seems unlikely, given the progress that's been made to date.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the field should be aware that the ToE doesn't depend on abiogenesis. Readers may draw their own conclusions...

Your comments show that abiogenesis is only hypothesis while I have demonstrated real science. Now, you're using the false claim that ToE does not depend on abiogenesis. Basically, all ToE has is microevolution. Macroevolution is based on historical science and that could be wrong. No origins is the same as no abiogeneis means no aliens. No origins means no macroevolution. No microevolution. No evolution. At least, with God as creator, everything fits -- the intelligence behind the design, mature, adult creatures, plants, universe, Earth, Noah's Flood and so on. The science backs up the Bible. Science does not back up evolution.

Anyway, I am wasting my breath. Might as well wrap this up.

 

[jamesbond007]

Sure ..
Of course, logic is not science. Appropriate use of logic in science, calls for testing of posits. Nothing is ever taken as just being 'true'.
Thus, Abiogenesis is just one big hypothesis under test, as far as the principle of Evolution is concerned.

Abiogenesis is based on life being here. Just as the BBT is based on the universe being here. Prior to the 1850s, both were accepted as creation. Otherwise, it was the eternal universe theory and Earth, humans and animals were created by God. The fact that the universe, Earth and everything is here is evidence for God. Now it's evidence for evolution.

 

[jamesbond007]

Citation?

I don't think any space scientist would claim they will find life, let alone fish(!) - and you do seem to have persistent difficulty distinguishing between potentiality and actuality, fiction and reality.

Missed this one. NASA deleted it so unless someone kept a copy it is gone. If I find it somewhere in the near future, then I'll post it here. Of course, you won't criticize a fellow atheist scientist will you? It's not me you should be criticizing but atheist science NASA.

ETA: I just found this from NASA.

NASA Research Gives Guideline for Future Alien Life Search

Scientist Developing Instrument for Finding Extraterrestrial Bacteria

Will give both a read and see if there is something we can talk more about .

 

[jamesbond007]

And JimmyD. LOL .

 

[SelfSim]

Abiogenesis is based on life being here.
Just as the BBT is based on the universe being here. Prior to the 1850s, both were accepted as creation. Otherwise, it was the eternal universe theory and Earth, humans and animals were created by God. The fact that the universe, Earth and everything is here is evidence for God. Now it's evidence for evolution.

A testable Abiogenesis hypothesis, is a tentative attempt at maybe leading onto a theoretical explanation. What makes it science however, is following the operations of the step-by-step process: (i) speculation=>(ii) testable hypothesis=>(iii) objective tests=>(iv) objective results, (etc).

'Life' is operationally defined .. there are diagnostic tests which produce the definition of the 'life' we're talking about here, which can be done, sometimes by anyone, and those tests return consistent results leading to conclusions which can, on whole, be agreed by scientifically thinking minds.
I can also agree that the base 'life' diagnostic tests, and their results at present, have involved testing on only Earthly 'life'.

If what you're also saying is that these same tests and results, also form 'evidence for God', then I'd have to say that unless you can cite objective tests and results which form the operational basis of the definition of 'God', then you are not following the above scientific process, (which would define what 'God' is). You're welcome to go on believing in 'God'.. but you haven't ticked the boxes on what 'God' is, as far as science is concerned.

See, every definition that Science uses, is operationally (and objectively) defined .. without exception. Mixing science's operationally defined meaning of the 'life' we're talking about here, with something non-operationally defined, ie: 'God', is not consistent with the scientific process.

Evolution is a principle and can also be stated as an operational definition .. (ie: it can be arrived at, as a result of tests and corresponding results). And that is why, (what you say above), is all scientific evidence for Evolution .. and not scientific evidence for 'God'.