PDA

View Full Version : Life on a Meteorite?


epicSocialism4tw
03-05-2011, 09:29 PM
Possibly. Evidence is currently being analyzed by over 100 scientists.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/

Killericon
03-05-2011, 09:31 PM
The number of "is this life?" things that pop up has to be over one a month.

At any rate, if true, then life on Earth just became way less impressive.

Archer81
03-05-2011, 09:34 PM
The number of "is this life?" things that pop up has to be over one a month.

At any rate, if true, then life on Earth just became way less impressive.


Someone should tell the nerds on Ancient Aliens.


:Broncos:

epicSocialism4tw
03-05-2011, 09:43 PM
The number of "is this life?" things that pop up has to be over one a month.

At any rate, if true, then life on Earth just became way less impressive.

Life is impressive no matter what the setting.

HAT
03-05-2011, 10:21 PM
Life is impressive no matter what the setting.

Except on a basketball court after a layup...Then death is impressive to you.

That One Guy
03-05-2011, 10:26 PM
We continue to see these things pop up and I find myself being underwhelmed thinking about it. Wake me when they find intelligent life. The chance that bacteria exist elsewhere? No doubt, very possible.

Finding bacteria from another planet comes across, to me, as flipping a quarter and having it land on heads 25 times in a row. It'd be quite rare, you'd expect it to happen eventually, but when you told people about your accomplishment you'd probably get some "OOOOKKKKKKKKKK... and?" responses.

epicSocialism4tw
03-05-2011, 10:28 PM
Except on a basketball court after a layup...Then death is impressive to you.

Wow...that's quite a mischaracterization.

I didnt know you were so sensitive. Need some calgon?

epicSocialism4tw
03-05-2011, 10:30 PM
We continue to see these things pop up and I find myself being underwhelmed thinking about it. Wake me when they find intelligent life. The chance that bacteria exist elsewhere? No doubt, very possible.

Finding bacteria from another planet comes across, to me, as flipping a quarter and having it land on heads 25 times in a row. It'd be quite rare, you'd expect it to happen eventually, but when you told people about your accomplishment you'd probably get some "OOOOKKKKKKKKKK... and?" responses.

Well, the thing about this life is that it looks like a rod-shaped bacteria. It looks like it could be related to a certain species of bacteria thats here.

The guy who found it couldnt find any Nitrogen in it, which makes it interesting.

That's why this is being looked at by a specific group of expert scientists...it's starting to look like a duck and they want to see if it quacks like one and walks like one as well.

This is also big for the panspermia folks who believe that life wasnt created here in a plasma-jarred chemical soup, but was instead "delivered" on a rock that pierced the atmosphere from beyond.

OABB
03-05-2011, 10:55 PM
Life is impressive no matter what the setting.

true. Except of course for your life. That's not very impressive. But I'm with you on the magic of "life".

Ratboy
03-05-2011, 11:16 PM
Life outside of Earth? I CAN DIE HAPPY!

OABB
03-05-2011, 11:22 PM
Except on a basketball court after a layup...Then death is impressive to you.

It was a game winner hat. Sheesh. Don't trivialize that boys life.

HAT
03-06-2011, 12:17 AM
I didnt know you were so sensitive.

No....Just a parent who took offense with a thread title that seemed to value athletic achievement over a human life.

Kids die everyday but if you really felt the need to discuss it here....

"Tragedy on a HS basketball court" would've been far more appropriate.

Carry on...

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 02:48 AM
We continue to see these things pop up and I find myself being underwhelmed thinking about it. Wake me when they find intelligent life. The chance that bacteria exist elsewhere? No doubt, very possible.

Finding bacteria from another planet comes across, to me, as flipping a quarter and having it land on heads 25 times in a row. It'd be quite rare, you'd expect it to happen eventually, but when you told people about your accomplishment you'd probably get some "OOOOKKKKKKKKKK... and?" responses.

:confuzzle

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 08:47 AM
:confuzzle

?

Do you really think there's a chance something like earth life hasn't cropped up on any other planets, ever? With all the different conditions on earth in which these cells can exist, it doesn't mean a thing for the benefit of humans.

I think I've just come to the conclusion that some sort of cellular life on another planet is an afterthought. Epic... was right though in that it could go a long way to proving whether life came here from another planet or something but in terms of just finding something... completely trivial and talked about so much that it's guarranteed to happen eventually.

tsiguy96
03-06-2011, 09:04 AM
?

Do you really think there's a chance something like earth life hasn't cropped up on any other planets, ever? With all the different conditions on earth in which these cells can exist, it doesn't mean a thing for the benefit of humans.

I think I've just come to the conclusion that some sort of cellular life on another planet is an afterthought. Epic... was right though in that it could go a long way to proving whether life came here from another planet or something but in terms of just finding something... completely trivial and talked about so much that it's guarranteed to happen eventually.

thats the thing though, there has never been any proof that life can or does exist outside of this planet, and they may have found it. to know, for a fact, that there is life outside of earth, instead of speculating, is huge.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 10:26 AM
thats the thing though, there has never been any proof that life can or does exist outside of this planet, and they may have found it. to know, for a fact, that there is life outside of earth, instead of speculating, is huge.

Humans are limited to an area pretty close to Earth. So even if they find conclusive proof of a lifeform elsewhere, chances are that we can't get there. MAYBE with a rover but I don't believe any of them even attempt to come home, they just stay and die.

So, again, it's all trivial at this point. There is no use to anything, no change to be made, just to be able to say we confirmed life exists elsewhere - though we may not even be able to say where. Entirely trivial at this point.

tsiguy96
03-06-2011, 10:33 AM
Humans are limited to an area pretty close to Earth. So even if they find conclusive proof of a lifeform elsewhere, chances are that we can't get there. MAYBE with a rover but I don't believe any of them even attempt to come home, they just stay and die.

So, again, it's all trivial at this point. There is no use to anything, no change to be made, just to be able to say we confirmed life exists elsewhere - though we may not even be able to say where. Entirely trivial at this point.

that changes everything, i think you are thinking too locally in "how does it effect me?" it probably wont. think of the basis of all religion, regardless of the results here it will get denied 100% by any major religion, but just think of the consequences there.

given the shear size of everything (i once heard from an astronomy teacher there is as many planets and bodies as there is grains of sand on the earth), its not hard to imagine there is life SOMEWHERE. but this confirms it, if it comes out as true.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 10:52 AM
that changes everything, i think you are thinking too locally in "how does it effect me?" it probably wont. think of the basis of all religion, regardless of the results here it will get denied 100% by any major religion, but just think of the consequences there.

given the shear size of everything (i once heard from an astronomy teacher there is as many planets and bodies as there is grains of sand on the earth), its not hard to imagine there is life SOMEWHERE. but this confirms it, if it comes out as true.

Well I think the religion thing is about done. I read an article that, sort of as an afterthought, said the Catholic church is abandoning the creationism theory, in a sense, and saying the bible is not meant to be interpreted as literal. I thought that was huge but haven't seen it anywhere besides there so I don't know really. If that is indeed their position though, this changes nothing on that front. The other religions would have to face it though.

And I agree that it would be interesting but it just seems to get so much publicity these days that in comparison to what difference it actually makes, I don't get it.

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 11:41 AM
that changes everything, i think you are thinking too locally in "how does it effect me?" it probably wont. think of the basis of all religion, regardless of the results here it will get denied 100% by any major religion, but just think of the consequences there.

given the shear size of everything (i once heard from an astronomy teacher there is as many planets and bodies as there is grains of sand on the earth), its not hard to imagine there is life SOMEWHERE. but this confirms it, if it comes out as true.

It wouldnt have any effect on any religion that I know of if evidence for panspermia was provided.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 11:42 AM
Humans are limited to an area pretty close to Earth. So even if they find conclusive proof of a lifeform elsewhere, chances are that we can't get there. MAYBE with a rover but I don't believe any of them even attempt to come home, they just stay and die.

So, again, it's all trivial at this point. There is no use to anything, no change to be made, just to be able to say we confirmed life exists elsewhere - though we may not even be able to say where. Entirely trivial at this point.

First of all, I'm as skeptical as anyone both that this is an uncontaminated sample and that these scanning-electron photographs show actual lifeforms rather than inorganic structures. That beings said, if this sample actually does contain lifeforms that originated somewhere extraterrestrial, then it is the greatest discovery in the history of mankind.

Trivial Hilarious!

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 11:58 AM
First of all, I'm as skeptical as anyone both that this is an uncontaminated sample and that these scanning-electron photographs show actual lifeforms rather than inorganic structures. That beings said, if this sample actually does contain lifeforms that originated somewhere extraterrestrial, then it is the greatest discovery in the history of mankind.

Trivial Hilarious!

Yeah, it looked to me that it could be either an inorganic bit of material that got naturally warped into the s-curved shape by heat and pressure or a terrestrial baccilus.

Its going to be really hard to prove that this object is foreign or unusual.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 12:07 PM
Yeah, it looked to me that it could be either an inorganic bit of material that got naturally warped into the s-curved shape by heat and pressure or a terrestrial baccilus.

Its going to be really hard to prove that this object is foreign or unusual.

I haven't really studied them for more than a couple minutes but I agree, it's going to be quite hard to PROVE. I skimmed over the paper and some of the photographs do look pretty interesting I have to admit: http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

Here's a good write up on it by Discover: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/05/has-life-been-found-in-a-meteorite/

Pseudofool
03-06-2011, 02:07 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php
Did scientists discover bacteria in meteorites?
Category: Kooks
Posted on: March 6, 2011 9:44 AM, by PZ Myers

No.

No, no, no. No no no no no no no no.

No, no.

No.

Fox News broke the story, which ought to make one immediately suspicious — it's not an organization noted for scientific acumen. But even worse, the paper claiming the discovery of bacteria fossils in carbonaceous chondrites was published in … the Journal of Cosmology. I've mentioned Cosmology before — it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth. It doesn't exist in print, consists entirely of a crude and ugly website that looks like it was sucked through a wormhole from the 1990s, and publishes lots of empty noise with no substantial editorial restraint. For a while, it seemed to be entirely the domain of a crackpot named Rhawn Joseph who called himself the emeritus professor of something mysteriously called the Brain Research Laboratory, based in the general neighborhood of Northern California (seriously, that was the address: "Northern California"), and self-published all of his pseudo-scientific "publications" on this web site.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 02:48 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php

Hilarious!

Pontius Pirate
03-06-2011, 03:00 PM
Possibly. Evidence is currently being analyzed by over 100 scientists.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/

This is apparently an OLD and BOGUS story. Fox News has been duped. This guy has been peddling this story for years and academics have already responded saying this is B.S.

"A University of Minnesota biology professor offers his take: "Did scientists discover bacteria in meteorites? No. No, no, no. No no no no no no no no. No, no. No... this work is garbage. I'm surprised anyone is granting it any credibility at all.""

http://gawker.com/#!5777460/fox-news-publishes-fake-exclusive-about-discovery-of-alien-life

Pontius Pirate
03-06-2011, 03:04 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php

Sorry. Double-posted.

OP should've known when the story was being "broken" on faux news.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 04:56 PM
First of all, I'm as skeptical as anyone both that this is an uncontaminated sample and that these scanning-electron photographs show actual lifeforms rather than inorganic structures. That beings said, if this sample actually does contain lifeforms that originated somewhere extraterrestrial, then it is the greatest discovery in the history of mankind.

Trivial Hilarious!

Genetic research has the possibility to help rid the world of some diseases and mutations. What exactly will the presence of bacteria do for us?

(If it had been real of course, hypothetically)

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 05:04 PM
Genetic research has the possibility to help rid the world of some diseases and mutations. What exactly will the presence of bacteria do for us?

(If it had been real of course, hypothetically)

The discovery of an alien bacteria would create a whole new field of comparative genetics that would open up worlds of information about the evolution of life on earth.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 05:10 PM
The discovery of an alien bacteria would create a whole new field of comparative genetics that would open up worlds of information about the evolution of life on earth.

Comparative... information... I understand we can't know a practical use until we stumble on one probably but, at this point... those words sound like another variant of "trivial".

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 05:12 PM
Comparative... information... I understand we can't know a practical use until we stumble on one probably but, at this point... those words sound like another variant of "trivial".

That's anything but trivial. It would contribute more to the study of genetics than Darwin did.

extralife
03-06-2011, 05:17 PM
Hello, I am That One Guy. Nothing can be interesting or useful unless it helps my stock prices go up. I have no intellectual curiosity or knowledge of any kind. Therefore, everything of value I already know or have categorically dismissed. I sleep well at night.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 05:29 PM
Genetic research has the possibility to help rid the world of some diseases and mutations. What exactly will the presence of bacteria do for us?

(If it had been real of course, hypothetically)

You speak of genetic research. What is your scientific background? I only ask because "the possibility to help rid the world of some diseases and mutations" is confusing. How do you rid the world of mutations?

What exactly will the presence of bacteria do for us?

This is a strange question. Do you really want the answer or are you just trolling?

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 07:51 PM
That's anything but trivial. It would contribute more to the study of genetics than Darwin did.

Well then I guess I'm missing something then. I understand there could be some potential that something useful will be attained from it but at this point, there's no way you could say what would actually be useful or how it'd be used. Without knowing what you'd find, it'd be impossible to do so.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 07:52 PM
Hello, I am That One Guy. Nothing can be interesting or useful unless it helps my stock prices go up. I have no intellectual curiosity or knowledge of any kind. Therefore, everything of value I already know or have categorically dismissed. I sleep well at night.

I said it would be interesting.

And I agree that it would be interesting but it just seems to get so much publicity these days that in comparison to what difference it actually makes, I don't get it.

I just said it didn't seem as significant as everyone is trying to make it.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 07:57 PM
You speak of genetic research. What is your scientific background? I only ask because "the possibility to help rid the world of some diseases and mutations" is confusing. How do you rid the world of mutations?



This is a strange question. Do you really want the answer or are you just trolling?

I'm serious... if there's an honest use, I just don't know it. I'm ignorant and uneducated, I'll admit that, I'm just saying I don't understand why people get so excited about it.

And by mutations I meant those random mutations and those known genetic deficiencies which cause problems so I might've used mutations wrong but, honestly, wasn't expecting anyone to snipe my word usage so didn't give the selection too awful much thought. To answer the question though, no background whatsoever - just an average Joe with too many opinions.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 08:15 PM
I'm serious... if there's an honest use, I just don't know it. I'm ignorant and uneducated, I'll admit that, I'm just saying I don't understand why people get so excited about it.

And by mutations I meant those random mutations and those known genetic deficiencies which cause problems so I might've used mutations wrong but, honestly, wasn't expecting anyone to snipe my word usage so didn't give the selection too awful much thought. To answer the question though, no background whatsoever - just an average Joe with too many opinions.

I feel like a dick, your level of education has no effect whatsoever on the issue at hand. I wasn't trying to call you out.

Mutations occur constantly and happen for an almost infinite amount of reasons. The DNA molecule that codes for all of your proteins is a pretty fragile entity. If we were to eliminate the mutating quality of our cells, it would actually be detrimental to genetic variation and our gene pool would grow stagnant, it is a necessary part of life.

I think we can all agree that the science behind this supposed finding is pretty hokey and we'll just go ahead and say that there is pretty much no chance in hell that this meteorite contains alien life forms. But for the sake of argument, say that it did. It would at the very least throw into question the very elemental theories about the origin of life. The religious implications would be enormous. If we are not a unique bubble of life in the universe, and intelligent life developed here, it becomes very improbable that this is the only time it has done so. But this is all for arguments sake, this "finding" appears to be complete bull****.

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 08:53 PM
Well then I guess I'm missing something then. I understand there could be some potential that something useful will be attained from it but at this point, there's no way you could say what would actually be useful or how it'd be used. Without knowing what you'd find, it'd be impossible to do so.

The finding itself would be one of the most significant scientific discoveries in human history.

Heres the deal. Whe have mapped the genomes of several species, including humans. Finding DNA period would be a massive discovery, which would provide evidence that DNA is either naturally occurring amongst other or all living organisms in the universe or that it was brought here from somewhere else. Either way it rewrites the books of knowledge in the biological sciences. It would be a monumental discovery.

The reason its not a special topic to you is maybe because you dont have an appreciation for the sciences? Because to anyone in biology or astronomy or astrobiology or cosmology, etc, this would be almost a holy grail situation.

Archer81
03-06-2011, 08:54 PM
I feel like a dick, your level of education has no effect whatsoever on the issue at hand. I wasn't trying to call you out.

Mutations occur constantly and happen for an almost infinite amount of reasons. The DNA molecule that codes for all of your proteins is a pretty fragile entity. If we were to eliminate the mutating quality of our cells, it would actually be detrimental to genetic variation and our gene pool would grow stagnant, it is a necessary part of life.

I think we can all agree that the science behind this supposed finding is pretty hokey and we'll just go ahead and say that there is pretty much no chance in hell that this meteorite contains alien life forms. But for the sake of argument, say that it did. It would at the very least throw into question the very elemental theories about the origin of life. The religious implications would be enormous. If we are not a unique bubble of life in the universe, and intelligent life developed here, it becomes very improbable that this is the only time it has done so. But this is all for arguments sake, this "finding" appears to be complete bull****.


If life exists on other planets, that life would be unique to that planet. So each individual planet would be a unique incubator for complex life. As someone else said, the universe has as many planets are there are grains of sand on every beach on earth, how many of those planets are capable of supporting complex organisms? How many actually have complex organisms?That number would still be small compared to the total number of planets in existence.

We know the conditions for life on earth. We know that there will be extremes because not every planet that could harbor life would be in the "sweet spot" for life as we know it to flourish. For all we know Venus could have life. As far as I know we have never landed a probe on the surface because of the heat, but bacteria on earth can live in volcanic vents, so who the hell knows.

It would not make me question God's existence to find out other intelligent life exists. If I have God given rights, so do they. Unless its like Independence Day or Battle:LA. Then I hold the right to blow them back to whatever alien hell they crawled out of.

:Broncos:

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 08:56 PM
I think we can all agree that the science behind this supposed finding is pretty hokey and we'll just go ahead and say that there is pretty much no chance in hell that this meteorite contains alien life forms. But for the sake of argument, say that it did. It would at the very least throw into question the very elemental theories about the origin of life. The religious implications would be enormous. If we are not a unique bubble of life in the universe, and intelligent life developed here, it becomes very improbable that this is the only time it has done so.

I dont think that the implications on religion would be anywhere near the implications on DNA research.

The implications on religion would be a minimal blurb...especially in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, all of which contain accounts of people interacting with intelligent life that is not human.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:11 PM
If life exists on other planets, that life would be unique to that planet. So each individual planet would be a unique incubator for complex life. As someone else said, the universe has as many planets are there are grains of sand on every beach on earth, how many of those planets are capable of supporting complex organisms? How many actually have complex organisms?That number would still be small compared to the total number of planets in existence.

We know the conditions for life on earth. We know that there will be extremes because not every planet that could harbor life would be in the "sweet spot" for life as we know it to flourish. For all we know Venus could have life. As far as I know we have never landed a probe on the surface because of the heat, but bacteria on earth can live in volcanic vents, so who the hell knows.

It would not make me question God's existence to find out other intelligent life exists. If I have God given rights, so do they. Unless its like Independence Day or Battle:LA. Then I hold the right to blow them back to whatever alien hell they crawled out of.

:Broncos:

Well, I'm not going to argue you on the religious matter. I would be pounding my head against a brick wall. One thing that has become very apparent to me is that people will believe what they want to believe when it comes to the existence of a god, and there is no dissuading them or rationalizing with them. It is of no consequence to me what you believe so I'm not going to argue with you there.

If there are other planets with Earth-like life on them across the universe, then the existence of intelligent life on some of these is an inevitability. The existence of genetic competition demands this. "Intelligence" is not so special. We are merely vessels for the genetic material within us, extremely complex and wonderful, but vessels none the less. If it happened here, it can happen somewhere else.

Archer81
03-06-2011, 09:15 PM
Well, I'm not going to argue you on the religious matter. I would be pounding my head against a brick wall. One thing that has become very apparent to me is that people will believe what they want to believe when it comes to the existence of a god, and there is no dissuading them or rationalizing with them. It is of no consequence to me what you believe so I'm not going to argue with you there.

If there are other planets with Earth-like life on them across the universe, then the existence of intelligent life on some of these is an inevitability. The existence of genetic competition demands this. "Intelligence" is not so special. We are merely vessels for the genetic material within us, extremely complex and wonderful, but vessels none the less. If it happened here, it can happen somewhere else.

Yes. But not like here. And I dont believe simply because a planet can support life means that life develops automatically.

:Broncos:

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:18 PM
Yes. But not like here. And I dont believe simply because a planet can support life means that life develops automatically.

:Broncos:

I was under the impression that we were accepting the articles "finding" for arguments sake. I don't think that if/when we find alien life it will be anything like what we have here on Earth.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 09:19 PM
The finding itself would be one of the most significant scientific discoveries in human history.

Heres the deal. Whe have mapped the genomes of several species, including humans. Finding DNA period would be a massive discovery, which would provide evidence that DNA is either naturally occurring amongst other or all living organisms in the universe or that it was brought here from somewhere else. Either way it rewrites the books of knowledge in the biological sciences. It would be a monumental discovery.

The reason its not a special topic to you is maybe because you dont have an appreciation for the sciences? Because to anyone in biology or astronomy or astrobiology or cosmology, etc, this would be almost a holy grail situation.

Alright, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree on the significance. We all view things different in this world.

Just for the record though, count me in for a vote of "I'd rather find a cure to 100 diseases than ever find out if life originated in some Promordial soup or were transplanted on a meteor".

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:23 PM
Alright, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree on the significance. We all view things different in this world.

Just for the record though, count me in for a vote of "I'd rather find a cure to 100 diseases than ever find out if life originated in some Promordial soup or were transplanted on a meteor".

How are we now able to cure diseases? It is through scientific thought and discovery. The only reason we know the structure of DNA is because 2 guys at Kings College dedicated themselves to thinking about something that at the time was completely useless. From this knowledge a genetic revolution took place which has allowed many others to provide concrete and real applications in the real world. That is how science works. Science is the hunt for knowledge. It is impossible to predict what good can come of it when it is first discovered.

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 09:24 PM
Alright, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree on the significance. We all view things different in this world.

Just for the record though, count me in for a vote of "I'd rather find a cure to 100 diseases than ever find out if life originated in some Promordial soup or were transplanted on a meteor".

What's crazy is that there's no doubt that some moron would clone alien bacterial DNA in some unethical private lab somewhere, and would put every living thing on the face of the earth in danger in the process.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:25 PM
What's crazy is that there's no doubt that some moron would clone alien bacterial DNA in some unethical private lab somewhere, and would put every living thing on the face of the earth in danger in the process.

They can't actually extract DNA from fossilized bacteria, because, you know, it's just rock now. The only thing we can do is analyze its structure and molecular composition.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 09:26 PM
Yes. But not like here. And I dont believe simply because a planet can support life means that life develops automatically.

:Broncos:

This was something I've found fascinating :

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition than the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment


If they can create something in such a short period in a lab, a planet that CAN contain life will, in my opinion, absolutely do so given enough time. Advanced life, intelligent life, that's a toss up... but the very basic forms of life? I have no doubt, personally.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:27 PM
This was something I've found fascinating :

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition than the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment


If they can create something in such a short period in a lab, a planet that CAN contain life will, in my opinion, absolutely do so given enough time. Advanced life, intelligent life, that's a toss up... but the very basic forms of life? I have no doubt, personally.

This is a pretty interesting hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 09:30 PM
How are we now able to cure diseases? It is through scientific thought and discovery. The only reason we know the structure of DNA is because 2 guys at Kings College dedicated themselves to thinking about something that at the time was completely useless. From this knowledge a genetic revolution took place which has allowed many others to provide concrete and real applications in the real world. That is how science works. Science is the hunt for knowledge. It is impossible to predict what good can come of it when it is first discovered.

Absolutely. There could be some magical key that falls into our laps and changes the way the science world does different things. There could also be a small glob of goop that we can attain almost zero benefit from.

That's why I take issue with saying it would inherently be of "OMG!! WOWZERS!!" importance. Maybe it would change things and that'd be awesome. Maybe it'd just be a novelty and do absolutely nothing to benefit any earth life. We wont know until it happens but, as such, wont know the true significance till then either.

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 09:31 PM
Well, I'm not going to argue you on the religious matter. I would be pounding my head against a brick wall. One thing that has become very apparent to me is that people will believe what they want to believe when it comes to the existence of a god, and there is no dissuading them or rationalizing with them. It is of no consequence to me what you believe so I'm not going to argue with you there.

This discovery just isnt something that challenges the existence of a god in one way or the other. Its something that challenges earth-centric views, but it doesnt add anything to the cosmological discussion that cannot be easily explained by the popular religious philosophies.

Its not the concern of science to meddle with religious philosophy anyhow.

If there are other planets with Earth-like life on them across the universe, then the existence of intelligent life on some of these is an inevitability. The existence of genetic competition demands this. "Intelligence" is not so special. We are merely vessels for the genetic material within us, extremely complex and wonderful, but vessels none the less. If it happened here, it can happen somewhere else.

It can happen elsewhere, and we can theoretically surmise such, but nobody has answered our calls.

We wont know until we know, and thats what would make something like this story so important.

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 09:32 PM
This was something I've found fascinating :

The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition than the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment


If they can create something in such a short period in a lab, a planet that CAN contain life will, in my opinion, absolutely do so given enough time. Advanced life, intelligent life, that's a toss up... but the very basic forms of life? I have no doubt, personally.

Miller's experiment had some holes. He was never quite able to get it to work like he predicted. Thats why you dont hear as much about it as you might think you would.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:35 PM
This discovery just isnt something that challenges the existence of a god in one way or the other. Its something that challenges earth-centric views, but it doesnt add anything to the cosmological discussion that cannot be easily explained by the popular religious philosophies.

Its not the concern of science to meddle with religious philosophy anyhow.

I want to argue with you, but I'm not going to :wave:

Suffice it to say that I disagree.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:38 PM
Absolutely. There could be some magical key that falls into our laps and changes the way the science world does different things. There could also be a small glob of goop that we can attain almost zero benefit from.

That's why I take issue with saying it would inherently be of "OMG!! WOWZERS!!" importance. Maybe it would change things and that'd be awesome. Maybe it'd just be a novelty and do absolutely nothing to benefit any earth life. We wont know until it happens but, as such, wont know the true significance till then either.

Well, it wouldn't be like they discovered that belly button lint changes color with a frequency that defies current understanding of belly button lint color changing patterns.

It would be one of, if not the most foundation shattering, widespread theory rewriting discoveries since the Earth was found to be a sphere and not flat.

I'm pretty sure that it would bring about some pretty interesting discoveries. You're not allowing me to rationalize with you ROFL!

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 09:41 PM
I want to argue with you, but I'm not going to :wave:

Suffice it to say that I disagree.

Well, you are holding the premise that all religious cosmology is the same in a way that suggests the introduction of panspermia or parallel evolution would knock the feet out from under it, which just isnt the case. The "big three" religions have a similar comsological root that easily allows for both panspermia and parallel evolution. Just like anything else, it takes time for the information to filter through, but its just not a threat in the least to the core.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 09:43 PM
This is a pretty interesting hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

Agreed, it was. Thanks.

This part in particular peaked my curiousity:

The RNA World hypothesis is supported by RNA's ability to store, transmit, and duplicate genetic information, as DNA does. RNA can also act as a ribozyme, a special type of enzyme. Because it can reproduce on its own, performing the tasks of both DNA and proteins (enzymes),...

I've always thought it was strange that two things (DNA and RNA) were so close in function yet it wasn't an either/or thing. I never considered that it could be a niche type relationship and because DNA did the job better, RNA just found a different role in the process. I'm not sure if I'm to take from that whether DNA evolved independently or FROM RNA but tough break for RNA if it got beat out by its own variant.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:43 PM
Well, you are holding the premise that all religious cosmology is the same in a way that suggests the introduction of panspermia or parallel evolution would knock the feet out from under it, which just isnt the case. The "big three" religions have a similar comsological root that easily allows for both panspermia and parallel evolution. Just like anything else, it takes time for the information to filter through, but its just not a threat in the least to the core.

Do you take the Bible literally?

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 09:46 PM
Do you take the Bible literally?

I think that you give the masses of great thinkers throughout history who have paved the way through difficult philosophical subjects much less credit than they deserve.

OABB
03-06-2011, 09:48 PM
Did god create aliens on the eight day than?

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 09:49 PM
Miller's experiment had some holes. He was never quite able to get it to work like he predicted. Thats why you dont hear as much about it as you might think you would.

Well he didn't go full Lisa Simpson and create a whole new Alien lifeform in his science fair experiment but just to show that such a simple concept created SOME of the building blocks of life is awesome. The evolution of life as we know it is so complex and reliant on pure chance yet, based off his experiment, could have been quite simple in concept as well.

While also trivial, I hope in my lifetime they can put together a pretty solid explanation for how it all came to be. Something more solid than a few theories. Makes me appreciative of the life we have as one simple little molecule not being in the right place could've altered - or denied - the entire presence of life on this planet.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:50 PM
Agreed, it was. Thanks.

This part in particular peaked my curiousity:

The RNA World hypothesis is supported by RNA's ability to store, transmit, and duplicate genetic information, as DNA does. RNA can also act as a ribozyme, a special type of enzyme. Because it can reproduce on its own, performing the tasks of both DNA and proteins (enzymes),...

I've always thought it was strange that two things (DNA and RNA) were so close in function yet it wasn't an either/or thing. I never considered that it could be a niche type relationship and because DNA did the job better, RNA just found a different role in the process. I'm not sure if I'm to take from that whether DNA evolved independently or FROM RNA but tough break for RNA if it got beat out by its own variant.

DNA is extremely close in chemical structure to RNA.

http://courses.bio.indiana.edu/L104-Bonner/Sp10/imagesSp10/L21/DNADef.jpg

The sugar in DNA is missing an oxygen molecule, hence DEOXYribonucleic acid. There are also different bases used in the structure, but they are extremely similar molecules relatively speaking.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:51 PM
I think that you give the masses of great thinkers throughout history who have paved the way through difficult philosophical subjects much less credit than they deserve.

:~ohyah!:I'm telling you, this discussion will end in tears.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 09:55 PM
Well, it wouldn't be like they discovered that belly button lint changes color with a frequency that defies current understanding of belly button lint color changing patterns.

It would be one of, if not the most foundation shattering, widespread theory rewriting discoveries since the Earth was found to be a sphere and not flat.

I'm pretty sure that it would bring about some pretty interesting discoveries. You're not allowing me to rationalize with you ROFL!

Well, if they can figure out why my finger stinks so bad after I pick my belly button lint... game on, find them aliens!

Maybe you guys are right. There's obviously those out there infinately smarter than myself just waiting to find life and change the world with it. For my average man's mind though, unless it holds the secret to making my truck run 90 MPG or allows me to ask my dog why the F he keeps barking when I'm trying to sleep and understand his response, I wont be impressed.

I really think the next step in the discovery process though is just to find a way to get to them. There's so many different conditions on other planets and different historical conditions as well, I think we could probably find something right here in our own solar system. Maybe we couldn't but until we find a way to explore better, we're not going to be able to really push the envelope any. Unfortunately, with budget cuts, that may not happen in our lifetime.

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 09:59 PM
Did god create aliens on the eight day than?

Why would the bible tell anyone when God created "aliens"?

The Torah is a book of religious philosophy. Of what need would people see in including things that they didnt know existed?

We still dont know that aliens exist for sure.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 09:59 PM
Dear epicSocialism4tw:

There is a huge amount of literature arguing both sides of this debate. We're not going to add anything to the debate by arguing on a Sunday night on a messageboard. It would be pointless. You believe what you want there's nothing I can do to change that. If you want to have a completely objective discussion about the nature of reality and the possible existence of a god then I will do that, but I really don't think that's what you're after.

Houshyamama

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 10:01 PM
:~ohyah!:I'm telling you, this discussion will end in tears.

It shouldnt.

There's no reason for religious people to be afraid of this, or any other topic.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 10:03 PM
Well, if they can figure out why my finger stinks so bad after I pick my belly button lint... game on, find them aliens!

Maybe you guys are right. There's obviously those out there infinately smarter than myself just waiting to find life and change the world with it. For my average man's mind though, unless it holds the secret to making my truck run 90 MPG or allows me to ask my dog why the F he keeps barking when I'm trying to sleep and understand his response, I wont be impressed.

I really think the next step in the discovery process though is just to find a way to get to them. There's so many different conditions on other planets and different historical conditions as well, I think we could probably find something right here in our own solar system. Maybe we couldn't but until we find a way to explore better, we're not going to be able to really push the envelope any. Unfortunately, with budget cuts, that may not happen in our lifetime.

If figure this out then PM me immediately. LOL

I really think what I'm trying to get at here is that the quest for knowledge is supremely important. I can't say for sure that it would lead to a better life on this planet or that it would change the world, but it sure would be a major turning point in answering one of the most fundamental questions facing every human ever born on this planet:

How did I get here?

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 10:04 PM
Dear epicSocialism4tw:

There is a huge amount of literature arguing both sides of this debate. We're not going to add anything to the debate by arguing on a Sunday night on a messageboard. It would be pointless. You believe what you want there's nothing I can do to change that. If you want to have a completely objective discussion about the nature of reality and the possible existence of a god then I will do that, but I really don't think that's what you're after.

Houshyamama

I am fine with whatever objective discussion that could arrise concerning this topic. There is nothing threatening about it at all scientifically or religiously.

Some people make it their goal to go outside of the bounds of knowledge to apply their own biases to the discussion, but I can assure you that this subject isnt threatening in the least to religious philosophy. Especially that of Christianity. I cant speak for Jews and Muslims, but as for Christians, there is nothing here that remotely challenges the faith.

Point out the things that you find difficult and maybe I can ease your concerns.

That One Guy
03-06-2011, 10:07 PM
Did god create aliens on the eight day than?

LOL

One of the things I've wondered about since I discovered it (not long ago) was how a scientist could also be a religious person and sync both theories. One justification for the acceptance of evolution by... I believe it was the Catholics was that yes evolution occurs but that God directs evolution and it happens because he makes it happen. Now, if God created man in his imagine and they accept that we evolved... what was God (an all-knowing amoeba?), why didn't anyone explain this theory to humanity in the bible, and why go through all the extra work making what would essentially amount to unintelligent lifeforms if the world was "created for the glorification of God"?

To this day, I would give anything to have the comfort that could come with believing in a God. To believe that any struggles in this world were for a greater good, to believe that doing the right thing will one day have long term rewards that make the short term benefits immaterial, etc., but I just can't comprehend how one can stick to their faith in the presence of science. I admire those that can but I question them at the same time.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 10:08 PM
I am fine with whatever objective discussion that could arrise concerning this topic. There is nothing threatening about it at all scientifically or religiously.

Some people make it their goal to go outside of the bounds of knowledge to apply their own biases to the discussion, but I can assure you that this subject isnt threatening in the least to religious philosophy. Especially that of Christianity. I cant speak for Jews and Muslims, but as for Christians, there is nothing here that remotely challenges the faith.

Point out the things that you find difficult and maybe I can ease your concerns.

Do you believe in the god of the Hebrews or simply the existence of A god?

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 10:10 PM
To this day, I would give anything to have the comfort that could come with believing in a God. To believe that any struggles in this world were for a greater good, to believe that doing the right thing will one day have long term rewards that make the short term benefits immaterial, etc., but I just can't comprehend how one can stick to their faith in the presence of science. I admire those that can but I question them at the same time.

One theory states that a belief in a higher power has been hardwired into our brains to counteract the realization that we are mortal and will one day die.

You are NOT weak for accepting the true nature of the universe and reality. It is a strength.

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 10:16 PM
Do you believe in the god of the Hebrews or simply the existence of A god?

Those are two very different questions, and its immaterial what I believe in starting the discussion.

Your premise was that the discovery of life other than that native to earth in the universe would be earth-shaking for religious philosophy.

That premise is easily discarded due to the presence of extra terrestrial life that interacts with humans (who are both surprised and scared by it) in many of the holy books of the religions of the world.

You could say that religious holy books predict the discovery of extraterrestrial life by the inclusion of such in many different places and many different contexts in books included in the canons of many different religions.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 10:19 PM
Those are two very different questions, and its immaterial what I believe in starting the discussion.

Your premise was that the discovery of life other than that native to earth in the universe would be earth-shaking for religious philosophy.

That premise is easily discarded due to the presence of extra terrestrial life that interacts with humans (who are both surprised and scared by it) in many of the holy books of the religions of the world.

You could say that religious holy books predict the discovery of extraterrestrial life by the inclusion of such in many different places and many different contexts in books included in the canons of many different religions.

Okay we'll set aside your personal beliefs on the matter.

Like I said though, I'm only interested in having a discussion on the nature of reality and the possible existence of a god. Only then can we relate our conclusions to the issues involved with this "finding". In that sense, my question stands as relevant.

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 10:22 PM
Okay we'll set aside your personal beliefs on the matter.

Like I said though, I'm only interested in having a discussion on the nature of reality and the possible existence of a god. Only then can we relate our conclusions to the issues involved with this "finding". In that sense, my question stands as relevant.

Well, you cant play a shell game here.

You raised the premise that the discovery of life from an extra-terrestrial source would essentially destroy many religious philosophies.

I have shown you why that is not the case. It would be unusually easy for religious philosophies to adapt to such information. Heck, Mormons would view it as solid confirmation of their religious beliefs.

If you want to change the premise to another, be sure to define it in your argument.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 10:26 PM
Well, you cant play a shell game here.

You raised the premise that the discovery of life from an extra-terrestrial source would essentially destroy many religious philosophies.

I have shown you why that is not the case. It would be unusually easy for religious philosophies to adapt to such information. Heck, Mormons would view it as solid confirmation of their religious beliefs.

If you want to change the premise to another, be sure to define it in your argument.

What I said was:

The religious implications would be enormous.

You are jumping way ahead in this argument. You are assuming that there is a god and that these religious texts have any bearing on the true nature of the universe. In an objective discussion, you don't get to make these assumptions, and I will not concede them.

Which brings me to the question: How do you know there is a god?

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 10:34 PM
What I said was:
You are jumping way ahead in this argument. You are assuming that there is a god and that these religious texts have any bearing on the true nature of the universe. In an objective discussion, you don't get to make these assumptions, and I will not concede them.

Which brings me to the question: How do you know there is a god?

The statement that I addressed was this one:

I want to argue with you, but I'm not going to

Suffice it to say that I disagree.

Which was a response to this statement of mine:

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw This discovery just isnt something that challenges the existence of a god in one way or the other. Its something that challenges earth-centric views, but it doesnt add anything to the cosmological discussion that cannot be easily explained by the popular religious philosophies.

And following that, I proceeded to explain to you how easily it would be adapted into alot of religious philosophy if non-earth-sourced life was found on a meteorite or elsewhere.

Have you given up that premise? Do you agree that religious philosophy would easily adapt to the introduction of such information?

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 10:43 PM
The statement that I addressed was this one:



Which was a response to this statement of mine:



And following that, I proceeded to explain to you how easily it would be adapted into alot of religious philosophy if non-earth-sourced life was found on a meteorite or elsewhere.

Have you given up that premise? Do you agree that religious philosophy would easily adapt to the introduction of such information?

Okay, I see what you mean. No, I don't agree that religious philosophy would easily adapt to the introduction of such information.

Or maybe it could. It doesn't matter. Religion will find a way to adapt to scientific findings up until the point that god is proven not to exist. Texts will be interpreted in different ways to suit the motives of the reader. Religion is not a source of truth when it comes to the history of the universe. Over the hundreds and thousands of years of Christianity's existence, the Bible's tune has changed countless times to reflect the march of scientific fact. What was true according to the Bible one century becomes old news in the next and theology merely changes it's "truth" to match up with what has become undeniable. So whether or not the Bible can "adapt" to the existence of aliens is pointless.

The real issue here is that this discovery would be another step in the quest for discovering where we ACTUALLY came from. Where did life actually come from? How was the universe created? When those answers are found, god will become extinct. In that sense, this discovery would have a profound impact on religion and the existence of a god.

HAT
03-06-2011, 10:44 PM
If figure this out then PM me immediately. LOL

I really think what I'm trying to get at here is that the quest for knowledge is supremely important. I can't say for sure that it would lead to a better life on this planet or that it would change the world, but it sure would be a major turning point in answering one of the most fundamental questions facing every human ever born on this planet:

How did I get here?

Funny, followers of Christ don't have such trivial concerns.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 10:47 PM
Funny, followers of Christ don't have such trivial concerns.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wAxDMfEGhoY/TI6y4IuY8aI/AAAAAAAAAS8/NCjMIHtSW0E/s1600/Not+Sure+if+serious.jpg

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 10:57 PM
Okay, I see what you mean. No, I don't agree that religious philosophy would easily adapt to the introduction of such information.

What is your reasoning?

Or maybe it could. It doesn't matter

Well, this is what we were discussing, so are you abandoning your defense of the idea that the discovery of uniquely extraterrestrial life would cause a great stir in religious philosophy?

Religion will find a way to adapt to scientific findings up until the point that god is proven not to exist.

There is alot to debate right here alone. You are criticizing "religion" (which I assume by your timbre to mean "Christianity" because you keep referring to the Bible) for being inclusive. The search for truth is a pillar of Christianity, encapsulated in Jesus himself and echoed through the ages through people like Saul of Tarsus, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Kierkegaard, Martin Luther King, C.S. Lewis, etc, etc. Truth is a major theme in Christianity.

Texts will be interpreted in different ways to suit the motives of the reader.

A text is a finite thing. There are only so many words contained within it. One can always go back to the original source documents to interpret them right from the source.

Religion is not a source of truth when it comes to the history of the universe.

That's your opinion. It is not fact. You are defining "truth" to mean only what you want it to in the context that you want it. People find spiritual truth in religion. They find ethical truth. They find moral truth. They find practical and idealistic truth.

Over the hundreds and thousands of years of Christianity's existence, the Bible's tune has changed countless times to reflect the march of scientific fact. What was true according to the Bible one century becomes old news in the next and theology merely changes it's "truth" to match up with what has become undeniable. So whether or not the Bible can "adapt" to the existence of aliens is pointless.

No, it is not pointless at all. It is the point that I made to counter the premise that you raised.

The adaptability of Christianity is a strength of the religion, not a fault.

And the "Bible's tune" has never, ever, ever changed. Cultures change, political systems change, governments change, but the Bible canon and the apocryphal books are accessible for anyone to see direct from the oldest sources available.

The real issue here is that this discovery would be another step in the quest for discovering where we ACTUALLY came from. Where did life actually come from? How was the universe created? When those answers are found, god will become extinct. In that sense, this discovery would have a profound impact on religion and the existence of a god.

The discovery of such a meteorite would not tell you where life came from. It would tell you where it could have come from.

The odds of you knowing where life came from (in terms of panspermia) during your lifetime are very slim.

Kaylore
03-06-2011, 11:01 PM
To this day, I would give anything to have the comfort that could come with believing in a God. To believe that any struggles in this world were for a greater good, to believe that doing the right thing will one day have long term rewards that make the short term benefits immaterial, etc., but I just can't comprehend how one can stick to their faith in the presence of science. I admire those that can but I question them at the same time.

Well for me I don't look for science in my religion. That's not what it's "for" at least for me. For me it's more about a zen thing. It's a path for me to make peace with my place in the universe as I perceive it. Is it real? Is it fake? I don't really know and it doesn't really matter. Maybe some religious people are so because they evolved a gene that allowed believing and hoping for something greater to endure longer and be happier? I don't really, truly know for certain. All I know is my own personal life experiences have lead my right into God. He might be a creation of a demented mind, an alien intelligence, or a true deity that wants to speak with and comfort me. I know many have had similar experiences and others haven't.

I also know a lot of it doesn't jive with science. At least some science, anyway. The bottom line is I don't go to religion looking for scientific answers. Nor do I go to science looking for ways to connect with God and my place in the cosmos in a spiritual sense. I guess my compartmentalizing of the two is how I operate. I completely understand how many cannot do this. I also can see how both sides would find my worldview frustrating and even angering. But it works for me and makes me happy so I don't really care.

I applaud you for admitting that the peace and comfort of a spiritual path is absent in your own life sometimes leaves you wanting in some areas. For me religion isn't about fear, or explaining something I can't understand. It's about giving me another way to connect to others, grow my compassion and humanity and give me strength when I need a boost.

I would love to see everyone find their way of tapping into the great resource that a spiritual belief. It doesn't have to make sense. I just has to work for you.

:afro:

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 11:09 PM
I would love to see everyone find their way of tapping into the great resource that a spiritual belief. It doesn't have to make sense. I just has to work for you.

CS Lewis believed that the fact that Christianity was an odd, wild thing with characteristics that you wouldnt expect made it more believable to him when he was an atheist because it mirrors the natural world.

You can see that in the way he depicted God as an untamed lion...frightening and powerful.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 11:09 PM
What is your reasoning?



Well, this is what we were discussing, so are you abandoning your defense of the idea that the discovery of uniquely extraterrestrial life would cause a great stir in religious philosophy?



There is alot to debate right here alone. You are criticizing "religion" (which I assume by your timbre to mean "Christianity" because you keep referring to the Bible) for being inclusive. The search for truth is a pillar of Christianity, encapsulated in Jesus himself and echoed through the ages through people like Saul of Tarsus, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Kierkegaard, Martin Luther King, C.S. Lewis, etc, etc. Truth is a major theme in Christianity.



A text is a finite thing. There are only so many words contained within it. One can always go back to the original source documents to interpret them right from the source.



That's your opinion. It is not fact. You are defining "truth" to mean only what you want it to in the context that you want it. People find spiritual truth in religion. They find ethical truth. They find moral truth. They find practical and idealistic truth.

.

No, it is not pointless at all. It is the point that I made to counter the premise that you raised.

The adaptability of Christianity is a strength of the religion, not a fault.

And the "Bible's tune" has never, ever, ever changed. Cultures change, political systems change, governments change, but the Bible canon and the apocryphal books are accessible for anyone to see direct from the oldest sources available.



The discovery of such a meteorite would not tell you where life came from. It would tell you where it could have come from.

The odds of you knowing where life came from (in terms of panspermia) during your lifetime are very slim.

Look, I have no ill will towards you at all, but I'm going to stop this discussion right here. It is absolutely pointless. I said from the beginning that:
If you want to have a completely objective discussion about the nature of reality and the possible existence of a god then I will do that, but I really don't think that's what you're after.

I was not interested in debating how these "findings" affect religion. It is not because I think they don't, but for us to have that discussion we need to start at the very beginning. This argument has degraded into pretty much exactly what I thought it would. Every point we argue will come down to what you believe because you BELIEVE in these texts, in the existence of a god. And until we can get past that, there is no objective argument to be had.

epicSocialism4tw
03-06-2011, 11:18 PM
Look, I have no ill will towards you at all, but I'm going to stop this discussion right here. It is absolutely pointless. I said from the beginning that:


I was not interested in debating how these "findings" affect religion. It is not because I think they don't, but for us to have that discussion we need to start at the very beginning. This argument has degraded into pretty much exactly what I thought it would. Every point we argue will come down to what you believe because you BELIEVE in these texts, in the existence of a god. And until we can get past that, there is no objective argument to be had.

I made not a single subjective argument.

Not once did I refer to what I believed, but only to commonly accepted philosophical principles defined over the years.

I have been through these arguments enough times to know that there are bounds to them, and that it is important to define your discussion so that wires dont get crossed. To define your discussion you need to use commonly accepted definitions and information to avoid confusion.

Best of luck in your search.

Wisdom will come in knowing that you do not and can not know as much as you feel you need to know.

Houshyamama
03-06-2011, 11:21 PM
Wisdom will come in knowing that you do not and can not know as much as you feel you need to know.

I am keenly aware that I don't know everything ;)

Heroin, be the death of me
Heroin, it's my wife and it's my life
Because a mainer to my vein
Leads to a center in my head
And then I'm better off and dead
Because when the smack begins to flow
I really don't care anymore
About all the Jim-Jim's in this town
And all the politicians makin' busy sounds
And everybody puttin' everybody else down
And all the dead bodies piled up in mounds
'Cause when the smack begins to flow
Then I really don't care anymore
Ah, when the heroin is in my blood
And that blood is in my head
Then thank God that I'm as good as dead
Then thank your God that I'm not aware
And thank God that I just don't care
And I guess I just don't know
And I guess I just don't know

Let's just leave this discussion alone for now.

OABB
03-07-2011, 12:28 AM
Why would the bible tell anyone when God created "aliens"?

The Torah is a book of religious philosophy. Of what need would people see in including things that they didnt know existed?

We still dont know that aliens exist for sure.

the question isn't what those men who wrote the Torah believed back in the day, the question is why the psycho defense of something that is obvioously philosophy and myth.


I believe that people are close minded, non objective, and morons who don't take the time to really research what they really truly believe.

I believe most of us don't have any idea what they really believe, and just mimic their parents philosophies.

Like saying Reagan was a good president when he clearly was not.

The bottom line, discovery of alien life would shake those morons to the core. They would deny evidence just like they do with evolution. They will paint the goalines back and change their stance and never once realize the terrible lie they are telling themselves.

Philosophy? Myth? I can get behind that. Truth? The word of god? I think unless you are a moron you know that is bull****.

Aliens would destroy genesis for the literal followers of the bible, and they would defend their stance violently like charlie sheen.

That will be fun to watch no doubt.

DivineBronco
03-07-2011, 02:33 AM
I am keenly aware that I don't know everything ;)


Let's just leave this discussion alone for now.


sorry nobody jumped in earlier to let you know that epicdrama is a wierd kind of troll who will do anything to be engaged could have saved you alot of typing and time.
He is in no way interested in the exchange of ideas just seeing himself type.

Pseudofool
03-07-2011, 03:12 AM
If God does exist, we live in his mind, and his reality (ours?) need not make sense. If he doesn't, we must make our own meaning.

It's funny that those that fight for the belief in God are the ones that cower from caring from other humans the most; as if the belief in God was exception from morality. Well, I'm going to heaven, the impoverished mother of that baby I guilted her into should work harder so she's not such a tax burden, and that baby don't end up stealing my cool crap. (That said, the Christian God, that sentences some to hell, and will leave some behind, is some evil **** we should be willing to rally against. Even if true, there's nothing moral about eternal damnation.) Honestly, religion is cop-out from being a good person. And if there is a God, he sees that **** too. Good luck, phonies.

That said, who care if there's life on other planets, the theory of relativity prevents any kind of meaningful relationship with such creatures.

Pseudofool
03-07-2011, 03:24 AM
sorry nobody jumped in earlier to let you know that epicdrama is a wierd kind of troll who will do anything to be engaged could have saved you alot of typing and time.
He is in no way interested in the exchange of ideas just seeing himself type.For all of drama.llama's faults, he's a passionate dude; and that moves us other passionate people. I think, as much as he faucets the voices the evil (and that's what you do, llama, evil!), he's not beyond hope. Those of us in the business of making the world a better place might learn from sparring with such a figure that pushes such a transparent, selfish (even evil) agenda. What's insteresting there are such others on this board that help us sharpen our nobility: JJJ, ThatOneGuy, TailgateNut (apologies if my mind has malaproismed your screen name). As righteous and arrogant as their trumpets may seem, they are so much in the minority, that their villainy (and that is what it is) might be seen even to them, and their families might even survive their terrible wrath.

cutthemdown
03-07-2011, 03:36 AM
Probably just an old chunk of the Earth that made it's rounds and is now come home. J/K I have no idea about stuff like this.

If they do discover like, and it only amounts to something like this, it's sort of boring. I mean it at least has to burrow into someones head or something.

cutthemdown
03-07-2011, 03:39 AM
If God does exist, we live in his mind, and his reality (ours?) need not make sense. If he doesn't, we must make our own meaning.

It's funny that those that fight for the belief in God are the ones that cower from caring from other humans the most; as if the belief in God was exception from morality. Well, I'm going to heaven, the impoverished mother of that baby I guilted her into should work harder so she's not such a tax burden, and that baby don't end up stealing my cool crap. (That said, the Christian God, that sentences some to hell, and will leave some behind, is some evil **** we should be willing to rally against. Even if true, there's nothing moral about eternal damnation.) Honestly, religion is cop-out from being a good person. And if there is a God, he sees that **** too. Good luck, phonies.

That said, who care if there's life on other planets, the theory of relativity prevents any kind of meaningful relationship with such creatures.

Really? So your opinion is that the people who are the most religious, are also the ones that care for people the least? You haven't spent much time around religious people then. I don't go to church, but the friends I have that do are always doing incredible things for people and helping the poor.

I'm not saying liberals don't, but I am saying that your takes and opinions lack merit or truth.

jhns
03-07-2011, 07:49 AM
Man made religion is for those that can't accept not knowing everything. Others are religious because they are simple and don't question what their family tells them. These people would be completely different religions if they lived in a different part of the world. This is why religion is a joke. Just learn to deal with reality and the fact that there is stuff that we just can't know. We have the ability to be kind without being scared of hell. Religion was based on creating laws and morals in ancient times and was needed then.

There is simply no way to be both religious (based on man made religions) and logical at the same time.

JJG
03-07-2011, 08:51 AM
the question isn't what those men who wrote the Torah believed back in the day, the question is why the psycho defense of something that is obvioously philosophy and myth.


I believe that people are close minded, non objective, and morons who don't take the time to really research what they really truly believe.

I believe most of us don't have any idea what they really believe, and just mimic their parents philosophies.

Like saying Reagan was a good president when he clearly was not.

The bottom line, discovery of alien life would shake those morons to the core. They would deny evidence just like they do with evolution. They will paint the goalines back and change their stance and never once realize the terrible lie they are telling themselves.

Philosophy? Myth? I can get behind that. Truth? The word of god? I think unless you are a moron you know that is bull****.

Aliens would destroy genesis for the literal followers of the bible, and they would defend their stance violently like charlie sheen.

That will be fun to watch no doubt.

everyone except for you right?

OABB
03-07-2011, 09:00 AM
everyone except for you right?

No. Including me of course.

JJG
03-07-2011, 09:15 AM
No. Including me of course.

Fair enough

Archer81
03-07-2011, 10:36 AM
If God does exist, we live in his mind, and his reality (ours?) need not make sense. If he doesn't, we must make our own meaning.

It's funny that those that fight for the belief in God are the ones that cower from caring from other humans the most; as if the belief in God was exception from morality. Well, I'm going to heaven, the impoverished mother of that baby I guilted her into should work harder so she's not such a tax burden, and that baby don't end up stealing my cool crap. (That said, the Christian God, that sentences some to hell, and will leave some behind, is some evil **** we should be willing to rally against. Even if true, there's nothing moral about eternal damnation.) Honestly, religion is cop-out from being a good person. And if there is a God, he sees that **** too. Good luck, phonies.

That said, who care if there's life on other planets, the theory of relativity prevents any kind of meaningful relationship with such creatures.

God wont send you to hell. If it exists, you put yourself there. I am also not sure the assertion that people of faith tend to be less kind to others is true. The example given, of guilting a pregnant woman into keeping a baby is also an extreme. I could easily say people who push for abortions are doing so so that they do not have yet another unwed mother pulling from welfare. Which is usually the case, not women's reproductive rights or the health of the mother which abortion effects adversely. The history of the founder of planned parenthood was hardly an example of a caring egalitarian humanist. But that is a topic for another thread.

:Broncos:

Pseudofool
03-07-2011, 10:55 AM
God wont send you to hell. If it exists, you put yourself there. I am also not sure the assertion that people of faith tend to be less kind to others is true. The example given, of guilting a pregnant woman into keeping a baby is also an extreme. I could easily say people who push for abortions are doing so so that they do not have yet another unwed mother pulling from welfare. Which is usually the case, not women's reproductive rights or the health of the mother which abortion effects adversely. The history of the founder of planned parenthood was hardly an example of a caring egalitarian humanist. But that is a topic for another thread.

:Broncos:
Yeah, I made up the rules that will send me to hell. Such a God who creates such rules, to send emotional creatures to burn for eternity is an evil god and deserves no worship. Even now, you show your glibness and lack of care, thanks for proving my point.

Archer81
03-07-2011, 11:00 AM
Yeah, I made up the rules that will send me to hell. Such a God who creates such rules, to send emotional creatures to burn for eternity is an evil god and deserves no worship. Even now, you show your glibness and lack of care, thanks for proving my point.


Not at all. You alone are responsible for the choices and decisions you make. Therefore, if hell exists, the only entity putting you there is you. The same goes for going to heaven. God does not send you to heaven. You send yourself there.

:Broncos:

Pseudofool
03-07-2011, 12:24 PM
Not at all. You alone are responsible for the choices and decisions you make. Therefore, if hell exists, the only entity putting you there is you. The same goes for going to heaven. God does not send you to heaven. You send yourself there.

:Broncos:
Yeah God totally didn't make me, or the circumstance of my life, or my capacity to make decisions. But keep on believing in that stuff because you can't hate without.

Even if I did send me there, it's still an evil notion that such a place exist, or that God would want any emotional creature to suffer damnation for eternity, no matter how poor the creature's choices were. It's evil to have created such a place.

TonyR
03-07-2011, 12:34 PM
They would deny evidence just like they do with evolution.

Same with climate science...

Houshyamama
03-07-2011, 12:36 PM
Same with climate science...

Uh oh...
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/100720/GAL-10Jul20-5197/media/PHO-10Jul20-239094.jpg

TonyR
03-07-2011, 12:39 PM
Uh oh...


LOL I was thinking more along the lines of an open can of worms but I suppose the floodgates image works just as well! Either way, I couldn't resist.

Houshyamama
03-07-2011, 12:53 PM
LOL I was thinking more along the lines of an open can of worms but I suppose the floodgates image works just as well! Either way, I couldn't resist.

Ha, I saw your comment and thought "Here comes the crazy".

HAT
03-07-2011, 12:57 PM
Even if I did send me there, it's still an evil notion that such a place exist, or that God would want any emotional creature to suffer damnation for eternity, no matter how poor the creature's choices were. .

He doesn't. That's why he sent his son to die on the cross. John 3:16 and all.
He also gave you free will.....So yeah, your choice.

Sidenote: Why isn't this thread in the WRP forum by now again?

Archer81
03-07-2011, 01:10 PM
Yeah God totally didn't make me, or the circumstance of my life, or my capacity to make decisions. But keep on believing in that stuff because you can't hate without.

Even if I did send me there, it's still an evil notion that such a place exist, or that God would want any emotional creature to suffer damnation for eternity, no matter how poor the creature's choices were. It's evil to have created such a place.


So personal responsibility is still God's fault. Got it. That is a lame ass argument.


:Broncos:

epicSocialism4tw
03-07-2011, 02:04 PM
So personal responsibility is still God's fault. Got it. That is a lame ass argument.


:Broncos:

He's a Calvinist!

epicSocialism4tw
03-07-2011, 02:10 PM
The internet is full of young adults with somewhat inquisitive minds who get a bit twisted when the subject of God or religion arise. They see it as an opportunity to attack religious people personally under the guise of "rational" discussion. This is a nice anonymous place for them to unleash their smoldering hatred for people they dont understand. They flock to these threads like hungry fleas to the back of a dog, and are no more interested in rational discussion than they are in God.

Houshyamama
03-07-2011, 02:12 PM
The internet is full of young adults with somewhat inquisitive minds who get a bit twisted when the subject of God or religion arise. They see it as an opportunity to attack religious people personally under the guise of "rational" discussion. This is a nice anonymous place for them to unleash their smoldering hatred for people they dont understand. They flock to these threads like hungry fleas to the back of a dog, and are no more interested in rational discussion than they are in God.

Your patronization is amusing.

epicSocialism4tw
03-07-2011, 02:22 PM
Your patronization is amusing.

Because I'm right.

You provided a good example of how I am right. You started a discussion with me on one subject, which I provided a very basic analysis for you to continue. It didnt last but a couple of posts before you had abandoned a rational discussion to start in with platitudes born from your own irritation.

It wasnt your idea to discuss and to possibly learn. It was your idea to have a discussion that "ends in tears". Meaning that you feel that these conversations are fulfulled in enmity and gnashing of teeth, while I tried to reassure you that they do not have to end that way.

Religion discussions on the internet are usually performed in a vacuum. They are back-patting sessions for people who hate religious people, and if a religious person joins to provide a counter opinion, they are ruthlessly attacked. You dont realize it, but people like that are acting the Screwtape Letters out in real life.

I have encountered one person here who is eloquently and respectfully atheist. Maybe there are more, and they have the sense not to join in with the thug mobbery. To them I tip my hat and offer my respect.

HAT
03-07-2011, 02:24 PM
The internet is full of young adults with somewhat inquisitive minds who get a bit twisted when the subject of God or religion arise. They see it as an opportunity to attack religious people personally under the guise of "rational" discussion.

Part of the problem is people view 'religion' & believing in Christ as savior synonymously.

I'm a Christian, but that doesn't preclude me from having problems with religion.

Houshyamama
03-07-2011, 02:28 PM
Because I'm right.

You provided a good example of how I am right. You started a discussion with me on one subject, which I provided a very basic analysis for you to continue. It didnt last but a couple of posts before you had abandoned a rational discussion to start in with platitudes born from your own irritation.

It wasnt your idea to discuss and to possibly learn. It was your idea to have a discussion that "ends in tears". Meaning that you feel that these conversations are fulfulled in enmity and gnashing of teeth, while I tried to reassure you that they do not have to end that way.

Religion discussions on the internet are usually performed in a vacuum. They are back-patting sessions for people who hate religious people, and if a religious person joins to provide a counter opinion, they are ruthlessly attacked. You dont realize it, but people like that are acting the Screwtape Letters out in real life.

I have encountered one person here who is eloquently and respectfully atheist. Maybe there are more, and they have the sense not to join in with the thug mobbery. To them I tip my hat and offer my respect.

Oh dude, you say a lot but not much of it has any substance.

You twist words and meanings to fit your personal agenda.

I started trying to discuss the very elements that the discussion is based on, but you refused. You started with assumptions that I wasn't willing to concede. I became weary. It's not worth it. You can twist it any way that you desire, it's of no consequence to me.

epicSocialism4tw
03-07-2011, 02:29 PM
Part of the problem is people view 'religion' & believing in Christ as savior synonymously.

I'm a Christian, but that doesn't preclude me from having problems with religion.

Thats true.

And there are many subtleties to Christianity, many different ways to go about it. That is true for every religion. If someone wants to really understand a religion, they need to make sure to have the academic integrity enough to endeavor to learn and comprehend before condemning it. You cant say "I know so and so who's a ____insert religion_____ and I dont like them, so I dont like said religion", and fill your education with anecdotes. You have to go to the source and see for yourself. Dont count on other people to interpret the religion for you.

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful in his reading." - C.S. Lewis

One cannot claim to hold the key to reason and yet turn his eye to educating himself on that which he opposes. That just proves you to be obstinant, not intelligent.

broncosteven
03-07-2011, 03:21 PM
I know I am getting into this thread late where it has likely devolved into religion but all one has to do is ponder the Hubble Deep Field image for awhile and wonder what might be.

http://www.astro.washington.edu/courses/labs/clearinghouse/labs/HDF/images/hdf.jpg

I am not a big life sciences guy from a computer Network support stand point DNA and GATA look a lot like packet headers to me. I am not into a Creator type concept but it is not impossible based on all the physics and chemistry (which is beyond me) complexity involved in the universe.

That One Guy
03-07-2011, 03:29 PM
The internet is full of young adults with somewhat inquisitive minds who get a bit twisted when the subject of God or religion arise. They see it as an opportunity to attack religious people personally under the guise of "rational" discussion. This is a nice anonymous place for them to unleash their smoldering hatred for people they dont understand. They flock to these threads like hungry fleas to the back of a dog, and are no more interested in rational discussion than they are in God.

Come on, right or wrong, you'll never be able to participate in a solid DISCUSSION because you're too right to ever consider conceding a point. I generally agree with you in conservative principles but you're LABF's equal in the production of propaganda and attempting to bring down the other guy. You'll redefine ambiguous discussions to fit your agenda, ignore those points you don't like, and use talking points you think casts the opponent in the worst light possible. If this were a competitive debate, you'd do great. In a group of friends environment, you're terrible for the atmosphere.

Fedaykin
03-07-2011, 06:16 PM
I have encountered one person here who is eloquently and respectfully atheist. Maybe there are more, and they have the sense not to join in with the thug mobbery. To them I tip my hat and offer my respect.

Hilarious! You complaining about others lacking eloquence and respectfullness in debate is about as hypocritical as a person can get. You'd be better off being more mindful of the plank in your own eye.

Fedaykin
03-07-2011, 06:24 PM
In other news, looks like this "find" is, unsurprisingly, a whole lot of hubub about nothing. Looks like it's orignal source is Cosmology (www.cosmology.com) a crank "journal".

epicSocialism4tw
03-07-2011, 06:27 PM
Come on, right or wrong, you'll never be able to participate in a solid DISCUSSION because you're too right to ever consider conceding a point. I generally agree with you in conservative principles but you're LABF's equal in the production of propaganda and attempting to bring down the other guy. You'll redefine ambiguous discussions to fit your agenda, ignore those points you don't like, and use talking points you think casts the opponent in the worst light possible. If this were a competitive debate, you'd do great. In a group of friends environment, you're terrible for the atmosphere.

You're being quite unfair, and edging over into hyperbole here.

LABF literally only posts propaganda. I might post conservative articles, but I dont do drive-by propaganda. Disagreeing with someone else does not make one LABF. To be LABF, I would have to work for a political party for the explicit goal to propagandize internet forums with spam. I'm not anywhere near that. If you cant handle seeing a strong conservative opinion, thats not my fault.

If I ever show up in the wee hours to derail threads that criticize liberals with cartoons and specious articles, only show up around election season, and only use links from liberal misinformation clearinghouses, then you can compare me to LABF. LABF doesnt even know anything about the people that he quotes. I'm sure that you as well as anyone else have been accused of something by LABF (probably having to do with Bush) that you have never agreed with or done.

epicSocialism4tw
03-07-2011, 06:29 PM
Hilarious! You complaining about others lacking eloquence and respectfullness in debate is about as hypocritical as a person can get. You'd be better off being more mindful of the plank in your own eye.

Ha!

Thats funny coming from you. ROFL!

Mr.Meanie
03-07-2011, 06:39 PM
I dont do drive-by propaganda.

You regularly post incendiary attack articles from fringe conservative websites, usually with some ridiculous conspiracy theory. When these articles are thoroughly debunked or dismantled, you disappear from the thread and move onto the next topic. What other term would could possibly fit better than "drive-by propaganda"?

And to the other point made by That One Guy, I have never once seen you concede a point. You make some valid arguments sometimes, but then other times you make some complete off-the-wall argument and instead of backing off and condeding a point, you will do some pretty incredible mental gymnastics to defend your position... or you will simply disappear. You are incapable of having a reasonable conversation unless it is one you agree with, and your posts typically take on a tone of condescension and arrogance.

The only difference between you and LABF is he somehow has vast repository of liberal political cartoons and can't stop referring to Bush.

TonyR
03-07-2011, 06:56 PM
Thats funny coming from you.

Do you ever notice that you're quite often the only one agreeing with yourself? Do you ever stop and consider the possible implications?

Fedaykin
03-07-2011, 07:04 PM
You're being quite unfair, and edging over into hyperbole here.

LABF literally only posts propaganda. I might post conservative articles, but I dont do drive-by propaganda. Disagreeing with someone else does not make one LABF. To be LABF, I would have to work for a political party for the explicit goal to propagandize internet forums with spam. I'm not anywhere near that. If you cant handle seeing a strong conservative opinion, thats not my fault.

If I ever show up in the wee hours to derail threads that criticize liberals with cartoons and specious articles, only show up around election season, and only use links from liberal misinformation clearinghouses, then you can compare me to LABF. LABF doesnt even know anything about the people that he quotes. I'm sure that you as well as anyone else have been accused of something by LABF (probably having to do with Bush) that you have never agreed with or done.

Hilarious! You lie like a rug!

Fedaykin
03-07-2011, 07:05 PM
Ha!

Thats funny coming from you. ROFL!

When have I complained about tone?

That One Guy
03-07-2011, 07:10 PM
You're being quite unfair, and edging over into hyperbole here.

LABF literally only posts propaganda. I might post conservative articles, but I dont do drive-by propaganda. Disagreeing with someone else does not make one LABF. To be LABF, I would have to work for a political party for the explicit goal to propagandize internet forums with spam. I'm not anywhere near that. If you cant handle seeing a strong conservative opinion, thats not my fault.

If I ever show up in the wee hours to derail threads that criticize liberals with cartoons and specious articles, only show up around election season, and only use links from liberal misinformation clearinghouses, then you can compare me to LABF. LABF doesnt even know anything about the people that he quotes. I'm sure that you as well as anyone else have been accused of something by LABF (probably having to do with Bush) that you have never agreed with or done.

You are right, you're not QUITE LABF's equal. He is worse but you're the closest conservative version and you aren't too far off.

You regularly post incendiary attack articles from fringe conservative websites, usually with some ridiculous conspiracy theory. When these articles are thoroughly debunked or dismantled, you disappear from the thread and move onto the next topic. What other term would could possibly fit better than "drive-by propaganda"?

And to the other point made by That One Guy, I have never once seen you concede a point. You make some valid arguments sometimes, but then other times you make some complete off-the-wall argument and instead of backing off and condeding a point, you will do some pretty incredible mental gymnastics to defend your position... or you will simply disappear. You are incapable of having a reasonable conversation unless it is one you agree with, and your posts typically take on a tone of condescension and arrogance.

The only difference between you and LABF is he somehow has vast repository of liberal political cartoons and can't stop referring to Bush.

Bingo. LABF borders more on troll than Epic does.

Pontius Pirate
03-08-2011, 11:54 AM
Complicated questions regarding science, alien life, and the possibility of a supreme being. All being solved for on the Orange Mane. Keep it up guys, the Mensa society are furiously jotting down notes. We're almost there...

Seriously though. Is there a god? Yes. What exactly that is, I can not tell you. But it is the explanation for all that is. Maybe it's a particle. Maybe it actually is an omniscient entity that can make things happen at will. Maybe it's a metaphysical force in the multiverse that we can not even begin to understand based on our current scientific capacity. But science and religion can co-exist. In fact, I think scientific discovery needs to be open to possibilities outside of what they can currently observe if we are going to actually make giant steps forward. If we consistently held the mantra that "x is not possible because there is no scientific evidence to suggest it's possible" then we'd still believe in a flat globe and a solar system in which the sun revolves around us.

OABB
03-08-2011, 11:50 PM
Complicated questions regarding science, alien life, and the possibility of a supreme being. All being solved for on the Orange Mane. Keep it up guys, the Mensa society are furiously jotting down notes. We're almost there...

Seriously though. Is there a god? Yes. What exactly that is, I can not tell you. But it is the explanation for all that is. Maybe it's a particle. Maybe it actually is an omniscient entity that can make things happen at will. Maybe it's a metaphysical force in the multiverse that we can not even begin to understand based on our current scientific capacity. But science and religion can co-exist. In fact, I think scientific discovery needs to be open to possibilities outside of what they can currently observe if we are going to actually make giant steps forward. If we consistently held the mantra that "x is not possible because there is no scientific evidence to suggest it's possible" then we'd still believe in a flat globe and a solar system in which the sun revolves around us.

if there was a god, you wouldn't be able to type.

Pontius Pirate
03-18-2011, 02:39 PM
if there was a god, you wouldn't be able to type.

Explain.

OABB
03-19-2011, 12:21 AM
Explain.

I'm not sure why I said that. It doesn't make sense.

I think I may have been boozing a bit.