Lake found on Mars

[modo]

I honestly don't know of any Biblical passage that says life is only on Earth. It just talks about Earth and God creating it along with the heavens and everything we see. Then again I have not memorized the Bible or interpreted every passage.

The whole Earth is the center of the Universe is a Catholic thing. I believe some other religions have claimed the Earth is the center at some point as well. Not because of the Bible. It stems from early Greek teachings about what we understood about our existence. We are Human so we make wrong conclusions until we get it right. It happens in modern day science as well.

 

[brett05]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but does the Bible speak of God putting life on other planets? To find life on another planet assumes that God put that life there as well, no? So which did he do first? Which one does he favor? Was Mars the original Earth, and then he flooded that planet - thereby recreating the world here on Earth 2?

I mean, there's a whole bunch of good (and silly, see above) questions that can be asked to make one question what is in the Bible.

Silly is fine.

I don't think the Bible has a verse for life only existing on Earth. I would say if life, like that which has been speculated, is on Mars, could it be it came from Earth would be a valid question to me.

 

[brett05]

I honestly don't know of any Biblical passage that says life is only on Earth. It just talks about Earth and God creating it along with the heavens and everything we see. Then again I have not memorized the Bible or interpreted every passage.

The whole Earth is the center of the Universe is a Catholic thing. I believe some other religions have claimed the Earth is the center at some point as well. Not because of the Bible. It stems from early Greek teachings about what we understood about our existence. We are Human so we make wrong conclusions until we get it right. It happens in modern day science as well.

The Bible never speaks of Earth as the center.

 

[modo]

there have been a number of passages in the Bible that people interpret as 'ET' friendly but the Bible is to be the word of God transcribed by Humans and we are fallible. We broke the original Commandments so misinterpretation is possible.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

In the above passage 'worlds' was translated from 'eons'....which partly means everything and all of time and space...



John 10:16 I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

'other sheep' probably refers to Gentiles, but literally translated could mean all intelligent life with souls.



If you adhere to the Bible in some form or another ymmv on these passages. My own personal faith would not be affected by alien life. The more wondrous things I see in nature the more my faith is strengthened.

 

[Ares]

Silly is fine.

I don't think the Bible has a verse for life only existing on Earth. I would say if life, like that which has been speculated, is on Mars, could it be it came from Earth would be a valid question to me.

That is like rule 1 of confirming any kind of results attempting to show life on another planet.

1. Make sure we didn't bring it there from Earth.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Silly is fine.

I don't think the Bible has a verse for life only existing on Earth. I would say if life, like that which has been speculated, is on Mars, could it be it came from Earth would be a valid question to me.

I think that would be a valid question for most.

 

[modo]

And this again is a fundamentally ignorant statement. You don't know enough once again to claim it is meaningless and you don't need to know the probability of something when all you are trying to do is determine a lower limit.

But you are right. We are repeating ourselves. I will just concede you apparently don't understand math.

One of the reason I don't like talking to you on these forums is that basically you wind up being a prick at the end of a discussion where you can't find common ground. I have told you my point has nothing to do with math at our level of understanding, yet since I disagree with you, the insult still has to come out.

Next time try this, instead of being an insufferable **** hole at the end of a discussion/debate just say "Ok we can agree to disagree". It isn't that hard.

 

[modo]

Depending on what we find a life form on Mars could have originated from an event on Earth. The moon was once part of the Earth so it certainly could be not out of the realm of possibility.

It is also possible life on Earth started on Mars, or even on some panspermia event from outside our solar system..........we may never know in our lifetime.

Then again, Mars may be just a dead planet and we don't find life.....that would be boring.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I don't think I want to know.

 

[remydat]

One of the reason I don't like talking to you on these forums is that basically you wind up being a prick at the end of a discussion where you can't find common ground. I have told you my point has nothing to do with math at our level of understanding, yet since I disagree with you, the insult still has to come out.

Next time try this, instead of being an insufferable **** hole at the end of a discussion/debate just say "Ok we can agree to disagree". It isn't that hard.

We can agree to disagree on opinion. However, when you continually misrepresent what the argument is then yes I will be a prick because I consider your misrepresentations to be you being a prick.

So sorry, I asked repeatedly if you read the article, you continued to ignore what the article said and instead responded with your preconceived notions of what you thought the article said. So I am left to conclude you either were being purposefully obtuse or you are just illiterate and suck at math. There was nothing overly complex about the english used in the article nor is there anything overly complex about the math so I can only conclude you are being purposefully obtuse by continuing to misrepresent what it says.

 

[brett05]

Depending on what we find a life form on Mars could have originated from an event on Earth. The moon was once part of the Earth so it certainly could be not out of the realm of possibility.

It is also possible life on Earth started on Mars, or even on some panspermia event from outside our solar system..........we may never know in our lifetime.

Then again, Mars may be just a dead planet and we don't find life.....that would be boring.

I'm not sure the moon was part of earth. That's not been proven AFAIK

 

[modo]

We can agree to disagree on opinion. However, when you continually misrepresent what the argument is then yes I will be a prick because I consider your misrepresentations to be you being a prick.

So sorry, I asked repeatedly if you read the article, you continued to ignore what the article said and instead responded with your preconceived notions of what you thought the article said. So I am left to conclude you either were being purposefully obtuse or you are just illiterate and suck at math. There was nothing overly complex about the english used in the article nor is there anything overly complex about the math so I can only conclude you are being purposefully obtuse by continuing to misrepresent what it says.

Of course I read the article and I disagree that you can make a calculation on it because of our lack of understanding of the creation of life.....the article's premise relies on the size of the universe, not how life actually starts....I have already stated ad nauseam my assertion that any calculation of the possibility of life on a planet is pointless unless we understand how it starts in the first place. I presented an article on it.

Let's just agree to disagree, without the insults.

 

[modo]

I'm not sure the moon was part of earth. That's not been proven AFAIK

Not proven, but it does explain why we have precession and why it is spinning away from us.

Besides the moon, we have found pieces of Mars on our planet and bacteria have been known to survive space travel.


Basically the theory is that a proto planet hit us and the debris formed the moon....that caused our tilt and part of the reason the moon spins away and also part due to tidal influences.

 

[brett05]

Not proven, but it does explain why we have precession and why it is spinning away from us.

Besides the moon, we have found pieces of Mars on our planet and bacteria have been known to survive space travel.


Basically the theory is that a proto planet hit us and the debris formed the moon....that caused our tilt and part of the reason the moon spins away and also part due to tidal influences.

Tidal influences yes, moon moving away yes, but it formerly being part of us doesn't make sense. As the moon moves further away the tides become gradually smaller. Closer moon, more flooding of the earth, no life for the planet.

 

[remydat]

Of course I read the article and I disagree that you can make a calculation on it because of our lack of understanding of the creation of life.....the article's premise relies on the size of the universe, not how life actually starts....I have already stated ad nauseam my assertion that any calculation of the possibility of life on a planet is pointless unless we understand how it starts in the first place. I presented an article on it.

Let's just agree to disagree, without the insults.

SMH, once again, it is not attempting to understand the creation of life. All it is doing is determining the lower limit of what the probability has to be without actually claiming that lower limit is the actual probability. So you keep making an assertion that is fundamentally irrelevant to the issue. Math is just math. One doesn't need to understand all the underlying variables to plug them in a math equation. It is like you are taking a math exam and instead of simply doing the calculations, you are arguing with the math teacher that you refuse to accept the calculations because you don't understand the big picture. The calculation does not require understanding of abiogenesis as all it is doing is calculating the lower limit of the probability required for life to not exist anywhere else. Abiogenesis is not an input in the calculation. It is what you are solving for. How do you not understand this? If I am solving for the lower limit of Y, I am not required to know what the actual number of Y is.

If you continue to claim something you know nothing about is meaningless then the only term I can use to describe that is ignorance? What credentials do you have to make such a claim? The articles you posted in support of your view don't even claim it is meaningless so you are going above and beyond what any credible scientist would say and so yes I call you ignorant because of it. Actions have consequences and the consequence of you saying stuff no credible scientist would say is that you may be called ignorant for saying it. Forgive me if I trust scientists over some random dude on the internet.

It is amazing to me how people with no knowledge in a given scientific field can claim something as meaningless when it is obviously being studied by actual scientists. The level of hubris involved is astounding.

 

[modo]

Tidal influences yes, moon moving away yes, but it formerly being part of us doesn't make sense. As the moon moves further away the tides become gradually smaller. Closer moon, more flooding of the earth, no life for the planet.

Flooding wouldn't necessarily prevent life. In some ways it can help it. It can help protect against radiation. From what is theorized the material was ejected to a certain level above the Earth and then coalesced into orbit. It doesn't mean that it was close enough to flood the Earth for half a day. It did cause shorter days and as the moon spins away the Earth slows down, but not at a noticeable enough rate in a short time frame. Life on Earth existed when the moon was much closer and the days were shorter.

Earth was mostly ocean in the past. Supposedly about 4.4 billion years ago.....the Earth then went through a heavy bombardment phase and based on fossil records, life emerged after that phase.

 

[modo]

SMH, once again, it is not attempting to understand the creation of life. All it is doing is determining the lower limit of what the probability has to be without actually claiming that lower limit is the actual probability. So you keep making an assertion that is fundamentally irrelevant to the issue. Math is just math. One doesn't need to understand all the underlying variables to plug them in a math equation. It is like you are taking a math exam and instead of simply doing the calculations, you are arguing with the math teacher that you refuse to accept the calculations because you don't understand the big picture.

If you continue to claim something you know nothing about is meaningless then the only term I can use to describe that is ignorance? What credentials do you have to make such a claim? The articles you posted in support of your view don't even claim it is meaningless so you are going above and beyond what any credible scientist would say and so yes I call you ignorant because of it. Actions have consequences and the consequence of you saying stuff no credible scientist would say is that you may be called ignorant for saying it. Forgive me if I trust scientists over some random dude on the internet. Am I supposed to let you shit on the work of scientists simply when you already said you have no clue about what they are studying?

and that is why I don't think the validity of any probability has any point. The creation of life is key to any existence of life.......

I don't need credentials to make my claim. I think my assertion is fairly straight forward.....I also posted an article by an astrophysicist that also says that any probability calculation is kind of pointless. If you don't trust my thought on it fine.

here is the link again...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...umans-are-alone-in-the-universe/#5d7a2dd47d3b

You can certainly extrapolate this information to include all of life because the same premise exists...we don't know the frequency at which life exists in the universe beyond 1.

You and I are arguing over semantics for the most part. We aren't even arguing over as something important like the existence of life. You choose to start an argument over some random calculation of the possibility of life outside Earth....



if we just went by credentials any discussion on this board would be moot because, for the most part, none of us are experts at what we discuss here. We are people who form opinions based on what we see and think.


here are the relevant parts to my point...stop attacking my credentials and address my points instead..if you disagree, that's fine...there really isn't anything to prove
In particular, there are a few steps that we simply don't know how frequently they occur. They clearly occurred here on Earth, but we haven't, as of yet, discovered anyplace else in the Universe where even one has occurred. These are the steps that lead us from non-living molecules to the complex, differentiated, intelligent species that we fancy ourselves to be.
This equates to two (in the Drake equation) unknowns that are absolutely necessary to reach the ultimate goal of intelligent aliens:

1. the likelihood of creating life from non-life on an Earth-like world,
2. and the likelihood of that life evolving into an intelligent, communicative, and possibly interstellar species.

In terms of raw probability, we have no idea how likely or unlikely these events are.

 

[Ares]

Flooding wouldn't necessarily prevent life. In some ways it can help it. It can help protect against radiation. From what is theorized the material was ejected to a certain level above the Earth and then coalesced into orbit. It doesn't mean that it was close enough to flood the Earth for half a day. It did cause shorter days and as the moon spins away the Earth slows down, but not at a noticeable enough rate in a short time frame. Life on Earth existed when the moon was much closer and the days were shorter.

Earth was mostly ocean in the past. Supposedly about 4.4 billion years ago.....the Earth then went through a heavy bombardment phase and based on fossil records, life emerged after that phase.

Lol brett don't believe the Earth is that old, modo.

:jackson:

 

[brett05]

Flooding wouldn't necessarily prevent life. In some ways it can help it. It can help protect against radiation. From what is theorized the material was ejected to a certain level above the Earth and then coalesced into orbit. It doesn't mean that it was close enough to flood the Earth for half a day. It did cause shorter days and as the moon spins away the Earth slows down, but not at a noticeable enough rate in a short time frame. Life on Earth existed when the moon was much closer and the days were shorter.

Earth was mostly ocean in the past. Supposedly about 4.4 billion years ago.....the Earth then went through a heavy bombardment phase and based on fossil records, life emerged after that phase.

Yeah, the rate of the moon leaving is slowing, which means it was faster in the past. The daily flooding of the earth would not allow current life. And then not enough time for the evolution once the Earth was not continually flooded. If the moon is made up of Earth fragments, what made them stop moving, what made them come together, what "smoothed it" over? I get the theory, I just think there's way too many holes in it.

 

[modo]

Yeah, the rate of the moon leaving is slowing, which means it was faster in the past. The daily flooding of the earth would not allow current life. And then not enough time for the evolution once the Earth was not continually flooded. If the moon is made up of Earth fragments, what made them stop moving, what made them come together, what "smoothed it" over? I get the theory, I just think there's way too many holes in it.

The theory goes that enough small particles coalesce thru static electricity...larger particles can form thru gentile collisions and then gravity takes control......

planets are smooth because of gravity. At about 700k in diameter the forces of gravity start to overwhelm the structure and cause it to go into a general round shape.



and I have never seen data that points to the moon slowing down while it drifts away from us.