Posts by wolf359

LIFE, JIM? Comet probot lander found 'ORGANICS' on far-off iceball

Re: But isn't it

In my experience, it is always the atheists that start the whole debate by celebrating every scientific thing that happens as the end of God. I am neither scientifically or Biblically challenged, as I study both intently. Science used to be about showing the hand of God in creation, now it is is all about disproving it. I would love to just read articles like this and enjoy the wonder of it all.....but then someone has to interject "That's it for God...." and the whole debate starts up again. And as far as I can tell, we both believe in something that can't be emphatically proven. So lets just agree to disagree and move on.

I completely agree that there is life everywhere in the universe, however your comment "There are any number of simple ways that life can start, and any number of ways it can continue through to the point that the remarkable things happen, like the development of cell walls and eventually multicellular life." has no basis in fact.

Please enlighten us....you talk a lot about statistics, but statistically speaking, having the proteins needed for life spontaneously assembling themselves is pretty well impossible. Or how about the probability of amino acids combining to form those proteins? Just for your calculations, there are approximately 3,000 different proteins in a bacteria. There are approximately 50,000 proteins in you and me and in one protein (hemoglobin) there are 146 amino acids....20 of which are essential for life. You might need a calculator for this one...

Re: Panspermia

"The evidence is pretty damn conclusive, however, that the answer is not "god".....why, because you say so? So what you are saying is that the two most improbable things in the universe (the universe popping itself into existence and life spontaneously creating itself) just happened? That is SO much more likely than God helping the process along.....I suggest you do a little more reading on just how improbable the proteins necessary for life assembling themselves is or how a physics-less void can create a universe. When you come right down to it, what is the difference between believing God creating everything or everything creating itself? We both believe something that is impossible to prove.

"That's it for God, then – if Comet 67P has got complex molecules", Really? The only reason Stephen Hawking and other so called prominent scientists even consider panspermia as a viable option, is because they cannot explain how life got started on the earth on its own. They think they can explain how the universe popped into existence from nothing (purportedly the laws of physics allows for this even though the laws of physics didn't exist until after the universe popped into existence)....hmmm.

Panspermia just moves the start of life somewhere else......consider this for a moment please: some bacteria is living out it's life on another planet, when all of a sudden, the planet is crashed into by an asteroid big enough and an explosion massive enough to eject our little bacteria friend into space at a velocity fast enough to escape the gravity of the star at the center of its solar system. After somehow surviving that cataclysm, our little bacteria friend travels through interstellar space (exposed to every nasty radiation you can imagine and near absolute zero temperatures) for millions of years or longer, only to have the rock it is on blast through our atmosphere and crash into our planet with the force several nuclear bombs. Oh, and having survived all of that, it is supposed to survive in an environment totally different from its natural home and as inhospitable as you can possibly imagine, and multiply itself. Sounds like a recipe for life to me! I wonder what the odds are of that all happening? I am certain they are still better than life spontaneously coming into existence on its own!

The only reason our learned friends think that ANYTHING could survive such an experience in order to start life on our planet, is because it is actually less likely that life would spontaneously start, than the universe popping into existence from nothing. For the record, our scientific friends are usually wrong about everything they cannot actually observe or measure. Example, remember how paleontologists envisioned a huge bi-pedal, Tyrannosaurus killing Spinosaurus or a gigantic raptor like dinosaur that belonged to those 8 foot long arms with huge claws on the end? So now we know that Spinosaurus was nothing more than a huge crocodile with a sail on its back (which could not have stood on 2 legs even if it had to) and those giant clawed arms belong to a huge ostrich like dinosaur without a tooth in its head? Remember when dinosaurs didn't have feathers and were cold blooded? The list of mistakes by scientist goes on forever and in every discipline of science. Do you want to know when we'll know everything about everything? When we are dead and God tells us how he did it...

Antarctic ice at all time high: We have more to learn, says boffin

Duh!

Lets see...we think that after keeping records for a couple of hundred years, that we have the climate of a planet that has been around for at least 4.5 BILLION years figured out?!?! We don't even know what caused the last ice age to end, other than we think it is an ongoing cycle...maybe it was caveman SUV's or maybe it is a solar cycle we haven't even discovered yet (after all the sun is the single most prominent factor other than the long term carbon cycle to our climate). If we can't figure out accurately what the weather will be like next week, how are we going to figure out a climate that has cycles of tens of thousands of years or longer?

Maybe if we are still around when the next ice age ends, we'll have some idea of how the climate of our world really works.

Most Americans doubt Big Bang, not too sure about evolution, climate change – survey

Re: BRAWNDO!! IT'S GOT ELECTROLYTES!

So what of people who are both? Stupidity is discounting something without doing any research. If the "more educated" were to put as much effort into reading the Bible and understanding it (googling it doesn't count), as they do reading scientific journals, this discussion would be much different. Whether the universe came from a singularity or is the result of 2 branes touching we will never know, so it is just as valid to say that a Creator was involved. As far as evolution goes, I don't see how someone could not believe in natural selection....however, the bigger question is how life began. That, no one can explain and the odds of it are so astronomical as to make it impossible. So again, it is valid to say that a Creator could have been involved. Lastly, as far as global warming is concerned.....there was a heck of a lot of warming going on at the end of the last ice age....and since I am pretty sure that neanderthals weren't using coal fueled power plants and driving SUV's, so I have to assume that global warming is a normal cycle and that we are still in an interglacial period and still warming. Back to my original point, if you don't know both sides of an issue, you have no right to discount the other.

SkyMapper turns up oldest star ever found

Hmmm

So it is roughly the same age as the oldest galaxies at the edge of our view of the universe? All that really tells me is that the universe is a lot older that we think it is......and that FTL is obviously possible.....or that we really don't know squat about early star formation....