Primitive Alien Life May Exist, Stephen Hawking Says

I guess it just depends on what you personally believe.

I know that I'm not the most important thing in the universe, but we are all pieces of a bigger puzzle (whether it be God or Godless). That's comforting to me.

 

well I can think you can not welcome an alien and at the same time not believe you are important in the grand scheme of things. I know I'd be kind of weary of any life form outside our own that is discovered at least till we gain an understanding of it.

 

so you are a Xenophobe. I played your game. It had crouching and two split screens for the first time.

 

against another species that was able to travel to earth probaly millions of light years very much so haha.

 

because in the mind of some, not being unique lessens the closeness to God. we are no longer the favorite child.

 

One more thing for us to dominate and control!

 

ha so ur either a xenophobe or a power hungry freak on this issue. I can live with xenophobe.

 

How bout that huge step in between nucleic acids and RNA?

Look we have gone over this time and time again. Miller Urey, while promising, didn't create life. Their atmosphere has been determined to be innacurate anyway. More recent experiments in the same vein with different atmospheric configurations have only duplicated their results, not advanced it. It hasn't produced anything that could in any way shape or form survive the primitive earth environment, let alone duplicate itself and then some how miraculously develope RNA/DNA. You need RNA/DNA first, then you can get life.

But hey I understand your POV. I respect it. I just whole heartedly disagree with it.

 

That is why I said "right now". Finding life on other planets doesn't change anything for me. It could go either way, but if I were a betting man - I would bet we are unique and alone.

 

Oh and to answer your question, as I always try to do if I can keep up, is - in order respectively,

Hoyle, Marowitz and Sagan. And I am not interested in how accurate their calculations are, the point is ..........it is 1 chance in 10 to the "insert a very large number here", take your pick.

 

but i think it does, or you wouldn't keep posting about being special and unique. we are what we are regardless of weather we are alone or part of a large community of ALF's.

it's probably a good thing you are not a betting man then, because odd's are against you on the alone aspect. we will always be unique however.

 

Actually Miller Urey was debunked awhile ago Celt:

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html

Now whether that particular website is reliable, I cannot say, I do know in arguing..err "discusssing" this before, but Miller Urey is no longer credible.

Abiogensis is not plausable as of yet.

 

Nonsense, Abiogenesis has never been proven...nope not once, there has never been "life" spring from the soil spontaneously, as to the Miller Urey Experiment:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17804

(WAit for it wait for it...let me guess space reference is now a Creationist site as well? That is as lame as "Gap theory just tries to.. let's argue the facts, not the opinions)


Miller Urey was B$ mi amigo, there were later experiments by Kobiayishi that came much closer, but they still did not push through and create even complete structures of RNA, only a few broken blocks.

The real problem for your "side" of the ledger is Entropy my friend, things get worse, not better over time...

 

Sir Fred Hoyle - "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol 294, November 12, 1981. p. 148.

Harold Marowitz - "Energy Flow in Biology", New York, NY, Academic Press, 1968.

Carl Sagan - Quoted by Dr. Joe White and Dr. Nicholas Comninellis, "Darwin's Demise", Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR, 2001, p. 33.

Again, I am not interested in their credentials or their accurracy - pick a number - it is astronomical. Against all odds, and statistically impossible - yet somehow it happened, although as of yet unexplainable.

 

If you can show the probability of those broken strains of RNA self aligning into a single strand of RNA, and then show the probability of those strands of RNA forming DNA, and then show the probability of that Franken DNA self assembling into even a primitive life form all the while avoiding Entropy on a 3 billion year old earth, then perhaps.

The argument over RNA appearing is not really much of an argument, in a lab, with a theortical atmosphere, with a desired outcome being manufactured, were your theory falls down, is when the probability of that happening enters into the picture, "life" has never sprung from dirt, merely broken building blocks, if you can show a organism that assembled itself from such a situation outside of a laboratory..I'm all eyes my friend.

Now here is where things become interesting (to me) in the Bible, Adam is created from...the dust of the earth, and Eve is created from..Adams "rib" now modern biological science shows us that every child is female until a burst of hormones changes the nascent life into "male" ( I could have that in reverse..)

Now "rib" in the Genesis account is not "curved bone" it is "Curve" as in a helix curve....so the proper account in Gen is "Adam's Curve"...

 

Nope, typical though, attack the publisher, not the information, sort fo like Global Warming zealots, anyone who opposes their theory is obviously a shill for an oil company, whether or not their information is accurate is of course, moot.

Can you rebutt what they have to say or not Celt?

 

As long as you can show the probability of that happening in Nature.

 

I knew it!

 

Well now, 500 life forms that spontaneuosly assemble from broken RNA in the Environment?

Do tell, this should be fun.

 

I would be interested in your data, But does this data show that life came from non-life, and also would it provide a mechanism to species jump? You see you have two obstacles to overcome, life from non-life, then life evolving, meaning new DNA material being added to the organism, enough to make it into a higher and more complex organism. All of the data I have seen is simply reshuffling of the same genetic material, or worse a mutation that leads to either a neutral effect, or a fatal effect to the organism. Further a mutation is information lost, not gained. We have seen deformities of existing limbs for instance, or multiple limbs, but never anything "new".

 

I need your explanation lol, I slept my way through science classes and jumped ship as soon as I met the min requirements

 

Then, by all means sir, begin the rebuttal.

I'm still waiting to see how any theoritical environment can defeat Entropy and the 2Lot, things head to disorder, not order, yet Evolutionists claim the opposite...

The one who made the eye, thinkest he does not see?

 

Indeed...

 

Celt, with all due respect, and you have been given much respect, where is the reciprocity? I don't believe in your science but I respect your views on the subject and I would never seek to call your beliefs fantasy or lore.

 

Actually D7, and Celt, I've seen these debates become heated, it is my hope that the reasons "why" each side believes the way that they do is cause for a nice discussion, not "abandon ye you faith" or "You are looking at things that just are not there".

I've been known to argue with a keyboard, but of all things, this seems to be the least worthy of such an effort.

 

From Urey? It's been awhile but their experiment did not produce whole strands of RNA, just a few parts of it.

BTW Celt. There are different types of "fact".