Adding a dimension--"Hi ET!"

[vz71]

OK I must be missing something here.

A scientist finds microbe fossils in a rock on earth and he concludes that the life came from space?

I do not see the connection.

Now if the rock were actually in space when it was found, and actually examined in space, I may feel more confident with the findings…

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Wow. Awesome reasoning, 71, What can I say?

 

[JDaniel]

that’s kind of a trollish move, suggesting I’m “wigged out” when I’m clearly not. And I just said a couple of posts ago that there may be other life in the universe, if you search you’ll find many posts where I say that. All that time without “wigging out”.

RB:

Here’s an interesting follow-up article, released a little while ago:

suntimes.com/news/nation/4187965-418/scientists-skeptical-of-meteorite-alien-life-claim.html

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

OK I must be missing something here.

A scientist finds microbe fossils in a rock on earth and he concludes that the life came from space?

I do not see the connection.

Now if the rock were actually in space when it was found, and actually examined in space, I may feel more confident with the findings…

VZ:

You make a good point, in a round-about way. As an employee of one of the nation’s top fossil galleries, I had very close dealings with various kinds of meteorites - until April of last year. I was given information on each as well as information on meteorites in general, including from whence they may have come. I cannot remember the source, sorry (I will look for it), but, I do remember that it is surmised that a great many, if not most, meteorites landing on earth actually were sucked from earth into space by the gravitational pull of several large bodies passing close to earth thousands of years ago, as well as from a number of very powerful volcanoes that may have been able to send shards of earth into space. So, it is very possible that if, in fact, the so-called fossils the so-called NASA scientist found are real, they may well have come from here.

God bless,
jd

 

[John21652]

Thanks guys, learned a new phrase - wigged out: Being devoid of reality, To lose sense of normalcy, An out of body experience. To act crazy as a reaction. To briefly flirt with lunacy. – urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wigged%20out

Conservatively there are 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars in the visible universe. Even if only one in 100 billion stars has an Earth-like planet that leaves 100 billion chances for life to develop, and the signs are that primitive life develops automatically wherever it can. The next generation or so of telescopes will be able to detect atmospheric changes associated with life on exoplanets, and I think most people will take it in their stride.

What we don’t know are the odds for intelligent life appearing. Given that civilizations probably don’t endure very long compared to the age of the universe, and the huge distances involved, the chances of us bumping into another civilization seem slim. Now take me to your leader, I bring greetings from Beetlejuice VI.

innocente, I have underlined one of your sentences which I think confuses certain isues.

You say there is evidence that life develops automatically wherever it can. What evdidence is there for that? I think you are confusing the development of life with the adaptibility of life. Because there are weird and strange life forms at even weirder and stranger places on earth doesn’t mean life developed automatically. It means that whatever life forms were around managed to adapt to their changing environments. Just because there is ample evidence of life that has adapted wondrously does not mean that life automatically developed. There must first be life before it can adapt and develope. Now, it would not surprise many people if, out of the billions of possible planets that may exist and may be capable of supporting life, if there was even just one that did. After all, statistically, we would say there is a very good chance. However, just because statistics say there is a good chance doesn’t mean that life somewhere else has happened. Life has to ‘get there’ first.

In my very first post, I asked about life on another planet crawling up out of some primordial soup. In other words, if we ever do find life on another planet, do we say life spontaneoulsy ‘developed’, or was it put there. Maybe it could be the case it ‘got there’ because a meteor carrying microbes crashed there. Maybe God put it there. Maybe it crawled up out of a primordial soup. In other words, if and when we find life on another planet, the very same questions will arise as to the beginnings of life itself.

 

[tonyrey]

*It is entertaining how materialists often pontificate that life is so rare in the universe it must be due to chance. But then… wait for it!.. when life seems to exist elsewhere they proclaim that it is so widespread it must be inevitable!

You haven’t refuted what I have stated…

Is God OmniPresent? If “yes” then Life is everywhere in the Universe a priori. Has God made you privy to what’s happening or not on other planets? All you are doing here is denying that anyone else in the world besides the faithful have a brain in their head. Perhaps you belong to the Beryl Baptist Church whose marquee declared:

All this is a load of balderdash which is totally irrelevant to my statement!

REASON IS THE GREATEST ENEMY THAT FAITH HAS

I agree entirely - faith in the power of inanimate matter to produce purposeful organisms…

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

RB:

Here’s an interesting follow-up article, released a little while ago:

suntimes.com/news/nation/4187965-418/scientists-skeptical-of-meteorite-alien-life-claim.html

God bless,
jd

JDaniel, if you didn’t read the link added in the update to the bottom of the original article the OP referances, it’s pretty good scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php

 

[Ranklyfrank]

You haven’t refuted what I have stated…
All this is a load of balderdash which is totally irrelevant to my statement!
I agree entirely - faith in the power of inanimate matter to produce purposeful organisms…

Dear Tonyrey, everything I have said is exactly and clearly pertinent to what you are saying. I mean you quote me, say I haven’t refuted what you said, and the quote my refutation, then say it’s balderdash and over your heard meaning you don’t understand it. If so, please retire your argument, because you re wasting your time. And by the way, do you actually think that I am arguing for materialism?

 

[inocente]

You say there is evidence that life develops automatically wherever it can. What evdidence is there for that? I think you are confusing the development of life with the adaptibility of life. Because there are weird and strange life forms at even weirder and stranger places on earth doesn’t mean life developed automatically.

OK, you got me John, evidence is too strong a word for things like the atmosphere of Titan and the arsenic Mono Lake microbes but they open a possibility that it’s not just existing life-forms which adapt but as it were life itself adapting to a range of starting conditions.

There are around 10^23 stars in the visible universe, and observation says at least 20% probably have terrestrial planets. Some won’t be in a Goldilocks zone, some the wrong composition or eccentric orbits, etc. but that still leaves a lot of places where life could develop.

My guess may be not be popular - that instead of life being a rare or unique spontaneous event, it’s unstoppable whenever and wherever primordial conditions are favorable. We don’t (yet ) know how it happens so we can’t accurately say what the environmental limits are, but it’s even possible we may someday find that life developed more than once here on Earth.

That’s pure hypothesis, blind faith if you like, but to me God created a universe where this kind of thing happens automatically, God is the Creator of the whole shebang, for the conditions of life rather than just life itself. To me that’s both more majestic and more credible.

What we don’t know are the odds for intelligent life and technical civilizations appearing, but it’s such a big and old universe we probably shouldn’t hold our breath hoping to meet any of them.

 

[John21652]

OK, you got me John, evidence is too strong a word for things like the atmosphere of Titan and the arsenic Mono Lake microbes but they open a possibility that it’s not just existing life-forms which adapt but as it were life itself adapting to a range of starting conditions.

There are around 10^23 stars in the visible universe, and observation says at least 20% probably have terrestrial planets. Some won’t be in a Goldilocks zone, some the wrong composition or eccentric orbits, etc. but that still leaves a lot of places where life could develop.

My guess may be not be popular - that instead of life being a rare or unique spontaneous event, it’s unstoppable whenever and wherever primordial conditions are favorable. We don’t (yet ) know how it happens so we can’t accurately say what the environmental limits are, but it’s even possible we may someday find that life developed more than once here on Earth.

That’s pure hypothesis, blind faith if you like, but to me God created a universe where this kind of thing happens automatically, God is the Creator of the whole shebang, for the conditions of life rather than just life itself. To me that’s both more majestic and more credible.

What we don’t know are the odds for intelligent life and technical civilizations appearing, but it’s such a big and old universe we probably shouldn’t hold our breath hoping to meet any of them.

Speculation heaped upon speculation. The article on California’s arsenic lake microbes actually says *“Life as we know it is remarkably diverse and adaptive…” *Well, we already knew that. It simply means that life on Earth has adapted to some weird and wonderful conditions. As for the Titan atmosphere, well, the researchers write that *“Two chemical enigmas certainly don’t constitute life, and the authors of the latter paper provide a variety of ways to account for the acetylene shortage that don’t involve an organism.” *In other words, there is no evidence for anything other than two chemical reactions. . In my post I mentioned how statistics would indicate to us that there may be life elswhere in the Universe, but statistical probabilities can be a poor guide. Statistically I should have won a lottery by now! In reality, I couldn’t even win a raffle! The point is we allow ourselves to get all excited because the human mind percieves the possibility of life on another planet and reality should tell us that even if the discovery did occur, we are then back to trying to figure out where it came from. We might end up speculating all the way to the Universe’s very last star.

 

[inocente]

Speculation heaped upon speculation.

Statistically we can make a stab in the dark at the number of places that could support life, but we’ve no idea how likely it is for life to develop from scratch, so all we’ve really got is speculation.

You seem to be speculating that it’s highly unlikely, whereas I’m extrapolating from evidence – we know it happened at least once in the only place we’re certain is suitable.

None of these reports are exactly exciting to me as I’m skeptical to the point of cynicism that life migrates between star systems on little lumps of rock. Now that does sound improbable. Find life on a lump of rock and chances are it came from Earth.

btw didn’t understand the bit about winning the lottery – the odds are often worse than 1 in 20 million, there’s a much better chance of being struck by lightning. Never bought a ticket anyway.

 

[mangy_dog]

Keep your shorts on people,

Germs in a rock that fell from the sky may be exiting for the scientists and astronomers. It’s still a silly leap to say that the manifestations in our skies are “intellegent aliens in spacecrafts from other civilizations”.

The answer is closer than anyone cares to investigate.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

The answer is closer than anyone cares to investigate.

Well, I sure agree with that!

 

[tonyrey]

Dear Tonyrey, everything I have said is exactly and clearly pertinent to what you are saying. I mean you quote me, say I haven’t refuted what you said, and the quote my refutation, then say it’s balderdash and over your heard meaning you don’t understand it. If so, please retire your argument, because you re wasting your time. And by the way, do you actually think that I am arguing for materialism?

How do you explain your disparaging reference to religious folk? >

Now with one of the most frequent caveats regarding the release of such information, or say an actual “close encounter (4),” being that it has to be approached slowly and with great caution because religious and other folks will freak, I’m wondering what anyone on here has to say about this?

 

[vz71]

Statistically we can make a stab in the dark at the number of places that could support life, but we’ve no idea how likely it is for life to develop from scratch, so all we’ve really got is speculation.

You seem to be speculating that it’s highly unlikely, whereas I’m extrapolating from evidence –

Let’s take a critical look at this evidence.
Perhaps now would be an appropriate time to bring out a well written article on the possibility of life on other planets…
s8int.com/crichton.html

The real evidence is that we have no indication of life anywhere else within creation other then our little patch of soil (earth).
Yet for some reason ‘scientists’ keep telling us that it has to be out there.

I don’t buy it.
Without evidence, it is all just speculation.

And now we have ‘scientists’ peering into rocks and claiming that the life must have come from space.
There is more evidence that it came from earth then there is that it came from space.

 

[mangy_dog]

Jacque Vallee has probably been the only UFO investigator that has done a full reversal from the days of the Roswell incident to what he percieves the phenomenon to really be.

He is ( I believe ) right on the money when it comes to the origin and meaning of this aerial phenomenon.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

How do you explain your disparaging reference to religious folk? >

Now with one of the most frequent caveats regarding the release of such information, or say an actual “close encounter (4),” being that it has to be approached slowly and with great caution because religious and other folks will freak, I’m wondering what anyone on here has to say about this?

Thanks. This is a good example of how you continually miss the point and misattribute ideas. I am here l clearly referring to “one of the most frequent caveats” of others. The idea is not originally mine, though I can see that there is an element of practicality in it and agree. This is such a good example of why it is such a task to try to converse with you.

And this does not constitute disparagement. Those folks might be perfectly wonderful but for some reason have a world view that if suddenly shattered cold cause upset, even major upset and group upset. When I had my own “awakening” experience regarding spirituality, it took years to re-stabilize in a new paradigm. So from experience I can say that it is not easy, and that those who say that about fundamentalist attitudes might have a very good point.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Jacque Vallee has probably been the only UFO investigator that has done a full reversal from the days of the Roswell incident to what he percieves the phenomenon to really be.

He is ( I believe ) right on the money when it comes to the origin and meaning of this aerial phenomenon.

Yes, he has some very good points to make in several ways. I’m not familiar though, with what he feels the purpose or end of that shift he speaks of is.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Today’s post from P.Z. Myers or what a complete pile of nonsense this story and the “Journal of Cosmology” website that published it are.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/i_am_getting_a_very_poor_impre.php

 

[mangy_dog]

Yes, he has some very good points to make in several ways. I’m not familiar though, with what he feels the purpose or end of that shift he speaks of is.

He is considered a “heretic” among ufologist because of the complete reversal he’s done. For starters, he does not believe that UFO and alleged extraterrestrials come from another planet.

And has mad comprehensive corollation between alleged abductions and demonic possession.

That’s just for starters. The UFO community really don’t like him.