A discussion on life (Scientific, not philosophical)
-
I assume your questions are motivated by the Fermi Paradox[^]?
Kevin
-
I assume your questions are motivated by the Fermi Paradox[^]?
Kevin
-
viaducting wrote:
I want to see how the world's religions handle it.
Same as always, denial and insurrection.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
During my current module (I am doing an Open University course on life sciences) I am learning about the beginnings of life. It is a contentious issue. Some think it was foam, others mud, some think it was an iron first development and so on... However, given all research and evidence, it becomes apparent that the golden rule is if there is liquid water, there is life. Posit. If life, or evidence of past life, is found on one other body in the solar system, be it Mars, Europa or wherever, it is a sign that life is universal. Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
What is "Life"? none of your questions have meaning until we can say with assurance - "This is life..." or "This is not life..." Whether foam, or mud/clay, or iron fist - I find the idea that life arose spontaneously from non-life to be a stretch of credulity beyond my capability. Even our scientific words describing the life sciences (bio*) require life to come first - a thing is not biotic unless it was derived from a biotic source. Every language has a word for the cessation of life - the moment when a living thing stops living - but words in any language for when a dead thing starts living are rare: the most we consistently find is a descriptive phrase used almost exclusively by scientists and philosophers. Given that observation stongly supports Pasteur's statement that "omni vivum ex vivo" (all life proceeds from life), where does the original life come from? It seems we have a case of life "all the way down" ...
-
The odds are hugely in favor of life, and intelligent life, throughout this galaxy and the remainder of the multiverse. We are not unique AND by far not the most intelligent lifeform that is or has existed. I'm sure other forms of life that have been around for billions of years would find us and our petty feuds marginally comical! The odds that we meet an intelligent lifeform (if one even exists on earth) are not all that great considering the distances and physics involved. A lifeform capable of travelling faster than the speed of light via some advanced technology such as wormholes, space-time warping, etc. would probably not be all that interested in us... Although we might make a nice quick snack on their travels! And might be worth a stop to do some "probing", i.e.: research. bwa
bwallan wrote:
Although we might make a nice quick snack on their travels!
SO long, and thanks for all the fish!
-
5!
Fabio Franco wrote:
5!
Oh, come on - everyone knows its 42! ;-)
-
It all becomes much simpler if we just ditch the idea of a god and just look at the chemical ways in which life could be formed. Such as the Miller-Urey experiment[^]. God was not needed for that experiment. Verifying theories by experiments is the basis of science, believing what some old and poorly translated book is saying is not. Also, if we accept the claim that god must exist because there is life, then why isn't there life elsewhere? Accepting the idea of a god is problematic - where did he come from? How did he leave no direct evidence of his existence? So Occam's Razor cuts god out of the universe until we find something that can truly only be explained by accepting the existence of god. But beware, humans have thought that before, and they were always wrong (lightning does not come from god, nor do the seasons).
harold aptroot wrote:
It all becomes much simpler if we just ditch the idea of a god and just look at the chemical ways in which life could be formed.
So we should discard one possibility and focus exclusively on an alternative - then wonder why we find ourselves pounding our head on a wall? While I am for research into the origins of life, to do so to the total exclusion of a non-physical source of life as at least a possibility seems silly, to me ...
harold aptroot wrote:
Such as the Miller-Urey experiment[^].
Oops - the Miller-Urey experiment proved little except that it is possible to synthesize some of the simplest amino acids, lipids, and sugars. The problem is, Miller-Urey created an environment which is vastly different from the one which existed on earth at the time that the first life was noted (about 3.8 billion years ago), and did not leave the amino acids in the environment which created them. The environment which created these compounds is destructive to the compounds it creates, so the created compounds must be removed from the environment to prevent them from being broken back down into their constituent elements.
harold aptroot wrote:
Verifying theories by experiments is the basis of science, believing what some old and poorly translated book is saying is not.
Agreed - few would claim that any religion is primarily a scientific undertaking. However, the statement is thoroughly irrelevant.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It all becomes much simpler if we just ditch the idea of a god and just look at the chemical ways in which life could be formed.
So we should discard one possibility and focus exclusively on an alternative - then wonder why we find ourselves pounding our head on a wall? While I am for research into the origins of life, to do so to the total exclusion of a non-physical source of life as at least a possibility seems silly, to me ...
harold aptroot wrote:
Such as the Miller-Urey experiment[^].
Oops - the Miller-Urey experiment proved little except that it is possible to synthesize some of the simplest amino acids, lipids, and sugars. The problem is, Miller-Urey created an environment which is vastly different from the one which existed on earth at the time that the first life was noted (about 3.8 billion years ago), and did not leave the amino acids in the environment which created them. The environment which created these compounds is destructive to the compounds it creates, so the created compounds must be removed from the environment to prevent them from being broken back down into their constituent elements.
harold aptroot wrote:
Verifying theories by experiments is the basis of science, believing what some old and poorly translated book is saying is not.
Agreed - few would claim that any religion is primarily a scientific undertaking. However, the statement is thoroughly irrelevant.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them
If He did create it why would He have created it on only a single planet in the universe?
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
did create it why would He have created it on only a single planet in the universe?
Nothing in the Bible eliminates the possibility of extraterrestrial life. However, given the treatment GOd has gotten from His creation - why would He put up with that more than once? We have used His name to justify mass murder and slavery, to justify almost every imaginable horrific treatment of His children, to claim inflated self-importance, to invent every imaginable insult to our creator: and in the end, large numbers of us just decide He doesn't exist. I wouldn't put up with that more than once ... ;-)
-
bwallan wrote:
Although we might make a nice quick snack on their travels!
SO long, and thanks for all the fish!