^^^ To explain the last part better... If they suspect there was some primordial soup containing certain ingredients, they should be able to recreate the exact conditions when life spontaneously appeared. There had to be an instant where something less than life became life, let's see them fast forward to that very point and it should happen in the lab every time.
i understand how others can think inspired feelings, personal internal revelations etc. are evidence too. that doesn't mean they aren't obviously, objectively demonstratably wrong about what constitutes reliable evidence. that doesn't mean their beliefs should be respected. i don't think of religious people as idiots either since i know they are delusional. an educated nuclear engineer who believes the earth is 6000 years old a good example of someone who is playing mind games with himself. name one.
how would they do that without a time machine? no there doesn't. for example if it took billions or trillions of finely graduated steps over millions of years to get from a self-replicating non-living compound to a cell, where do you draw the line between what is life and what isn't? the instant where life began would be entirely subjective.
OT does anyone else HATE the new forum software? it is so slow and buggy it's driving me batshit just trying to reply to posts.
The crazy part is that it stopped with that bunch of men, because that bunch of men wrote the stories down instead of passing them on by word of mouth. If the stories had gone on in a verbal tradition, they'd probably be a lot more relevant today. There would be stories of how God caused Bob's car to go off a cliff and into the river, or how God struck down Sally with a tremendous case of the clap. Yeah, I have no doubt the stories are based on some facts. As well as some fables, some fantasies, and some intentional distortions, most likely. barfo
I haven't had any real problems with it, except for this box I'm typing this reply into appears completely at the bottom of the screen with only enough room to type one line in without scrolling, and then to actually post the reply I have to scroll because the "post quick reply" button is below the bottom of the screen. barfo
Yes, but who "believes" in it? I think most scientists would say they think it is likely (or unlikely). They wouldn't say "I believe/disbelieve in life on other planets, and I will ignore all evidence to the contrary because for me, it is a matter of faith". barfo
scientists don't "believe" that in a religious sense. some think the probability is close to 100%, but they have objective reason to based on their view evidence (fact that we exist, size of the universe, wide distribution of elements of life, high probability massive number of earth-like planets exist etc). again, that is different than believing it because they "feel" it should or must be true.
that defintion works for differentiating living from non-living things today only because nothing in between exists. however if there was a continuous cline of progressively more complex structures in between a growing, reproducing crystal (for example) and a cell, where to draw the line becomes entirely subjective. the meaning of those terms as they apply to the simplest form of life becomes subjective.
Seems to me they want it to be true, even though there truly isn't a shred of evidence - not one measurable thing. A single cell not from this world would suffice. A radio signal would be pretty neat.
Wanting something to be true is different than believing it. I want you to give me $1 billion, I don't believe you will, however. barfo
science is certainly looking for "why". there is just no assumption than intelligent human-like purpose intrinsically exists in anything that goes on in nature.
"on earth" isn't elsewhere in the universe. I believe (there's that word again!) life is incredibly rare - so rare that we might be the only instance of it anywhere. Plenty of evidence: 1) Goldilocks Zone 2) not a binary star system (that cuts out 60% of every solar system out there) 3) plate tectonics 4) Ozone layer (UV protection) 5) Magnetosphere 6) Random luck - our planet collided with another the size of mars and survived (creating the moon) 7) The abnormal size of our moon relative to earth &c A lot of things have to align for life to exist - this is why we don't find it all over the other planets and moons in our solar system. Given how life takes hold, flourishes, and due to evolution it adapts, surely it would be everywhere, not just here. Especially if the precursors are in all those meteors that hit all the planets and moons.
You're describing a situation exactly like Earth, which isn't a pre-requisite for life. Life can exist on a planet without a moon, let alone a moon with the same proportions to its planet. Life may be different, the make-up of the world may be different, but there's nothing at all that implies everything must look identical to Earth, right down to the moon and its size, for life to exist. The same is true for plate tectonics. It's likely that a sheltering atmosphere and magnetosphere (though that's hardly uncommon) are important, but it's possible that they aren't essential to life either. Unless you think life must be exactly like us, your avenue of argument isn't that compelling, IMO.
But life on earth is evidence it exists elsewhere. Exactly what gives you any inkling that life elsewhere might be different than us? Evidence, please. As far as the moon, it keeps the earth's rotation rather steady (23 degrees), causes the tides that stir up the primordial goo, and so forth.
