Are WE the only life in the Universe?

[BlameTheEx]

Irish

 

But It doesn't answer the big question. How do we get him to go back?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Irish

 

But It doesn't answer the big question. How do we get him to go back?

See? Even when I ask a simple direct question without any aggression, irony or sarcasm, you go on attack and don't answer.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

See? Even when I ask a simple direct question without any aggression, irony or sarcasm, you go on attack and don't answer.

 

Hah...he got you there. I thought it was funny. Cheer up pal. It's Friday.

[BlameTheEx]

FreeThinker

 

Almost a good point, although I don't seem to be able to find a question. Still, seeing for once your post did carry the topic forwards I will reply.

 

On point 1:

 

The larger the escape velocity the more difficult it is to knock bits into space. This is by no means proof, but It is an argument in favour. Admittedly it is rather a weak one.

 

On point 2:

 

The rest of the universe is indeed still in the frame. With the same assumptions its inevitable that life evolved earlier elsewhere. Perhaps that is the true origin of earth life, but there is a catch. The nearest life external to the solar system is at best light years away. It could as easily be thousands of light years away. We don't have any firm knowledge as to how common viable planets are. A meteorite could have arrived on earth from another solar system that was contaminated with life, but would it still be viable after thousands, or even millions of years of travel?

 

There are good reasons to believe that such life would not survive. The accumulation of radiation damage is one. Simple deterioration over time is another. Chemistry is slowed down at the very low temperatures of space, but it is not stopped absolutely.

[IrishEyes]

FreeT: See? Even when I ask a simple direct question without any aggression, irony or sarcasm, you go on attack and don't answer.

 

Quit pouting FreeT. It's ok to laugh once in a while.

[Tormod]

Another story with relevance to this thread:

 

Major milestone for detecting life on Mars

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34282

 

I have met Dr. Hans Amundsen, who headed the expedition to Svalbard where this research took place. He showed some really amazing photographs which show a striking similarity between Earth and Mars.

 

His website is here:

http://www.planetary-exploration.com/

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Hah...he got you there. I thought it was funny. Cheer up pal. It's Friday.

While I appreciated the humor, the source and lack of followup reply with an actual answer was more of an indicator than a late adoption of typical tone.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Almost a good point, although I don't seem to be able to find a question.

Sorry. I forgot to whom I was replying. In the future I will keep my replies to you as simple as possible. Including question marks (that is this symbol "?") at the end of sentences that request further response. That should help you understand which are questions.

Still, seeing for once your post did carry the topic forwards I will reply.

They always do, even if it is to a dead end from your not being able to answer them.

On point 1:

 

The larger the escape velocity the more difficult it is to knock bits into space. This is by no means proof, but It is an argument in favour. Admittedly it is rather a weak one.

It may be "an argument in favour" of more materials being knocked into space from Mars than Earth. But how does that translate to Abiogenesis being more likely on Mars than Earth? (NOTE: the preceding sentence, ending in a question mark IS a question)

On point 2:

 

The rest of the universe is indeed still in the frame. With the same assumptions its inevitable that life evolved earlier elsewhere.

Yet many here have stated exactly the opposite. That there is little reason to assert that there is any real probability of extraterestrial life. (NOTE: A LACK of a question mark after any of these sentences indicates no specific request for additional response, though such is welcome if so determined)

Perhaps that is the true origin of earth life, but there is a catch. The nearest life external to the solar system is at best light years away.

If, as being suggested here, elemental life molecules exist on astroids and other Galactic hunks of rock, it would seem to be potentially contiguous across space. It would not require proximity to specific solar systems.

We don't have any firm knowledge as to how common viable planets are. A meteorite could have arrived on earth from another solar system that was contaminated with life, but would it still be viable after thousands, or even millions of years of travel?

It is possible that abiogenesis happened NOT on specific planetary bodies in developing solar systems, but just as possible on elemental clouds during such formations while a much more chaotic bodily motion existed. Just as we intentionally use gravitational slingshot effects to throw interplanetary objects faster and farther. Such gravitational effects could have resulted in accumulating masses being ejected into extrasolar journeys.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Quit pouting FreeT. It's ok to laugh once in a while.

Do you have any idea how this comment looks juxtaposed to your current avitar?

<center>

</center>

[Freethinker]

An expedition to Svalbard, Norway, has shown that a new technique developed by the Carnegie Institution can be used to detect life on Mars even if there is only a single cell available.

Does this mean they actually found life in Norway? Incredible. In such a hostile environment? :-)

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker.

 

I see you asked a question on point 1. The problem is it's not in any meaningful way different your last question on point 1. You have already got your answer. I ain't going to give it to you twice. Guess its a case of you not carrying the topic forward.

 

Still, nice that you have learned to use question marks. Keep it up. You might learn something about science next, or at least how to understand an answer.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker.

 

I see you asked a question on point 1. The problem is it's not in any meaningful way different your last question on point 1. You have already got your answer. I ain't going to give it to you twice. Guess its a case of you not carrying the topic forward.

This is where you and I have problems. You don't answer questions but somehow think you actually did. Let me see if I can help you understand the difference between ANSWERING a question and just restating the exact same thing over and over.

 

In your first post on it, you posted.

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

1) Assuming it was transferred by a meteorite hitting the planet so hard that bits of the planet were knocked into space with life hitching a lift. We know for a fact that bits of mars have arrived on earth a meteorites, but did it work the other way round? The escape velocity of earth is higher.

This is a discussion of the relative escape velocities of Mars and Earth.

 

The topic is LIFE, not escape velocities (EV).

 

Trying to bring the point back to the topic, I asked you to explain why #1 (EV's) would be relevant to a discussion on LIFE's origins.

I don't see where this would promote Mars as the source of life on earth.

OK, it did not have a question mark at the end, my bad!

 

I even commented additionally on how I saw #2's connection to the topic. Just wondered how #1 specifically fit in as PROOF. (Ya that PROOF thing again!)

 

And your ADDITIONAL information showing the CONNECTION between #1)'s EV's and the source of life on earth? The ANSWER you claim to have supplied already?

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

FreeThinker

(attack snipped)

On point 1:

 

The larger the escape velocity the more difficult it is to knock bits into space. This is by no means proof, but It is an argument in favour. Admittedly it is rather a weak one.

Again, you merely repost the same information on EV's in different words. NOTHING in the original claim or the reply specifcally address the specific topic of the source of life on earth.

 

Instead you attack me once more and claim *I* missed your answer on the connection with the source of life on earth.

 

OK, show it to us all! Show us where *I* missed it!

Still, nice that you have learned to use question marks.

Well you are the first one here that couldn't grasp requests for more info unless they ended with a question mark. I learn quickly. Let's see how you do.

Keep it up. You might learn something about science next, or at least how to understand an answer.

As soon as you learn to supply one we can all learn to try and understand it.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

An expedition to Svalbard, Norway, has shown that a new technique developed by the Carnegie Institution can be used to detect life on Mars even if there is only a single cell available.

 

Does this mean they actually found life in Norway? Incredible. In such a hostile environment? :-)

 

Yeah, apparently. Notice there is no mention of "intelligence" anywhere...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Yeah, apparently. Notice there is no mention of "intelligence" anywhere...

That was glaringly obvious! And has been? :-)

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

This thread was SPECIFICALLY freed from the burden of proof. Your obsession with proof will not be fulfilled here. As to other threads. Dig into any Cosmology theory, which is my main interest on this site, and the assumptions are always rather alarming. Extrapolations of forces far beyond all experimental evidence. Forms of matter, and energy that we have no evidence for other than the needs of the theory itself. Under the burdens of demanding even reasonably proof we could only look up to the sky and say "no comment".

 

In fact proof, in the terms you seem to require is not available anywhere. There is some proof, a lot of proof, proof beyond reasonable doubt, overwhelming proof, but not proof. Not unqualified proof. Not absolute proof. Dig into any proffered proof, as you will, and you will find it's based on assumptions. Sometimes very reasonable assumptions, but that's all.

 

You could argue that 2 and 2 equals 4 is proven, because it always seems to work, but there are assumptions behind even that. Is our system of arithmetic universally correct, or are we living in special circumstances? Could your senses be faulty? Are you being systematically fooled?

 

We assume that there is an order to the universe, there is a good chance that we know a lot about what that order is, but we will die never knowing for sure. All we can do is debate the probability, and practicality, of theories and that is all I intend to do.

 

Regarding point 1. Reread my original statement. It started "Assuming it was transferred by a meteorite....". Of course if you don't make that assumption it's not relevant. Sigh.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker

 

This thread was SPECIFICALLY freed from the burden of proof.

Only for your post evidently. None of us have any expectation that you will even have any for us on any thread here.

 

So yes, we officially BLESS you with freedom from reason and proof lest you not have anything left to post.

Your obsession with proof will not be fulfilled here.

Saw your name on the post and automatically knew this would be the case.

As to other threads. Dig into any Cosmology theory, which is my main interest on this site, and the assumptions are always rather alarming. Extrapolations of forces far beyond all experimental evidence. Forms of matter, and energy that we have no evidence for other than the needs of the theory itself. Under the burdens of demanding even reasonably proof we could only look up to the sky and say "no comment".

I have never found anyone with any involvement with the topics you list, to respond "No comment". They all are ready with any number of comments, opinions, propositions and theories. Experiments being performed and future experiments being developed.

In fact proof, in the terms you seem to require is not available anywhere. There is some proof, a lot of proof, proof beyond reasonable doubt, overwhelming proof, but not proof. Not unqualified proof. Not absolute proof. Dig into any proffered proof, as you will, and you will find it's based on assumptions. Sometimes very reasonable assumptions, but that's all.

overwhelming proof ...based on assumptions

proof beyond reasonable doubt,...but not proof

Boy are we all dizzy enough yet?

 

But let's all remember why you are trying so desperately to drive obfuscation to a new high!

 

Once more you made a claim and when asked for proof, you made ANOTHER claim that you had actually had answered the question/ provided the proof.

 

So when I documented your series of posts showing that to be a lie... we get this twisted obfuscation to the Nth degree.

 

Why don;t you just answer the question once and for all rather than waste everyones time with your extended attempts to prtend no one ever has proven anything and that your non-answers are some time of answer?

Regarding point 1. Reread my original statement. It started "Assuming it was transferred by a meteorite....". Of course if you don't make that assumption it's not relevant. Sigh.

IOW your claim is of no value. Have the intellectual honesty to just say it and let us all move on.

[Razeroth]

the universe has never produced just one of anything. all across the universe matter came forth, tiny little atoms with stuctures largely identical, billions of trillions in number, nearly simultaniosly. latter all across the universe stars began to form, billions of trillions in number, largely identical, nearly simultaniosly. gallaxies formed, billions of trillions in number. planets formed. atmospheres formed. carbon formed. water formed. light formed. LIFE FORMED! the universe never did anything just once. :)