Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Abiogenesis & the Tooth Fairy

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#26 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,392
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 23 May 2020 - 12:41 AM

I believe they have successfully bred Centaurs wit Motorcycles.

I have seen a Motaur on TV!

I thought that was a centacycle.



#27 goodricke1

goodricke1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 599
  • Joined: 18 May 2013
  • Loc: Ireland

Posted 23 May 2020 - 05:50 AM

To make that claim would require *evidence* of "intelligent design" or something supernatural.  

 

That's quite a draconian definition of 'evidence'. 100 billion stars x 200 billion galaxies and we're alone? No irrefutable court case has ever had stronger evidence than that. But believe what you will.



#28 Mister T

Mister T

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,838
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 23 May 2020 - 11:21 AM

You feel a kinship with your planet/environment because millions of years of evolution modeled you that way. An alien on another planet would feel exactly the same about its planet.

 

 

lugh poHlIj!


  • Crow Haven likes this

#29 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,392
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 23 May 2020 - 11:43 AM

That's quite a draconian definition of 'evidence'. 100 billion stars x 200 billion galaxies and we're alone? No irrefutable court case has ever had stronger evidence than that. But believe what you will.

As I always say (If 3 times in my life -- now 4 -- counts as "always")

 

Even if we're not alone... we still are.


  • Crow Haven likes this

#30 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,596
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 23 May 2020 - 01:17 PM

That's quite a draconian definition of 'evidence'. 100 billion stars x 200 billion galaxies and we're alone? No irrefutable court case has ever had stronger evidence than that. But believe what you will.

We haven't even explored the potential environments in this Solar System to the point where we can say that there is no life on other worlds in the Solar System.   So the discussion is and will remain purely hypothetical for the foreseeable future.

 

However, speaking purely hypothetically, what would it mean if in the distant future we were able to definitely say that the Earth is the only planet in the universe that ever developed life?

 

Of course anyone can choose to take whatever meaning they wish from that. 

 

From a scientific perspective it would provide zero evidence for a creator. 

 

First, Can you tell me what the scientific principles are that allow us to predict that if the Earth is the only planet with life in the universe that there was an entity that created the life on Earth? Scientific hypotheses should provide testable predictions.  Since creationism does not derive from scientific principles, it does not make any scientifically testable predictions.  It is creationists saying XYZ based upon convenient use of science when it suits their purposes and ignoring scientific results when those results are not convenient.

 

Second, until we have fully explored the possible physical and chemical situations that could produce life abiogenetically, it is nonsense to conclude that it is not possible for abiogenetic appearance of life.

 

A few other things:

 

1.  Let's say at some point in the future scientists concluded that there was some agent of purposefully influence on the appearance of life on Earth.  A scientific perspective on that would mean that there must have been an ancient race that originated elsewhere before our Solar System existed, and figured out space travel, and chose to "seed" suitable young planets with the necessary ingredients for life to develop on those planets.  Humans will almost certainly look to do so should we ever figure out the means to travel to other planetary systems. My point is that scientists do not look to supernatural explanations for what is observed.  If life was indeed "created" on Earth by an "entity", then that simply pushes the question of abiogenisis for the origin of life to the world where that entity's species first arose. 

 

2.  We don't even know that Earth is the appropriate place to look for the origin of Earth's life.  Planetary scientists studying the formation of the Solar System have pieced together a timetable for the formation of the planets.  It turns out that Mars finished forming about 10 million years after the formation of the oldest Calcium Aluminum inclusions (CAI's) in meteorites that are considered the time markers for the start of the Solar System (4.568 billion years ago).  

 

The Earth and Venus, however, continued to accrete until the final moon forming impact that the Earth experienced about 100 million years after the oldest CAI's.  That gave Mars a 90 million year head start and Mars is known to have had oceans early in its history.  So it is possible that life originated on Mars, and through impacts that kicked out debris, that life was carried to the Earth from Mars.   Or perhaps a combination is possible - the raw materials for the origin of life were chemically started on Mars, impact blasted into space where they were further processed by the interplanetary conditions (high energy radiation etc), and then when the meteorites landed on Earth the process finished.  We just don't know.

 

And we can go further, perhaps life originated billions of years ago on some other world in another star system and then the same impact scattering of debris kicked those materials into space and eventually those raw materials found their way onto the young Earth.

 

Are those scenarios the most likely scientific explanation for life on Earth?  Perhaps not.  But they are additional possible scenarios.  Personally, I would not be surprised if we never figure out the exact chemical/physical/geological/hydrological conditions that resulted in the origin of Earth's life.  I certainly don't expect it to happen any time soon.  Regardless, from a scientific perspective the correct explanation is the result of the physics and chemistry of the universe.

 

Finally, I continue to be baffled by the creationist view that their envisioned creator would only choose to create life on a single planet.   Why would an entity with that ability only choose a single world?  Creationists no doubt will be more than happy to dive into their reasons because that would not require any science be discussed.  But trying to think logically about it - an all powerful creator would create all this universe and choose only a single planet for life? 

 

As I discussed before, Richard Anthony Proctor argued in his 1869 book "Other Worlds than Ours" for a creator that was seeking to make sure every thing in the universe served a purpose that supported life. His dedication to remaining accurate to the scientific knowledge of the time in his interpretations is in stark contrast to the creationist/ID movement of today.


Edited by russell23, 23 May 2020 - 01:20 PM.

  • Crow Haven and brave_ulysses like this

#31 mountain monk

mountain monk

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,999
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Grand Teton National Park

Posted 23 May 2020 - 03:47 PM

I'm beginning to feel sorry for the Tooth Fairy. Can't someone marshal a defense of the poor thing?

 

Dark skies.

 

Jack


  • Crow Haven likes this

#32 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,392
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 23 May 2020 - 04:08 PM

I'm beginning to feel sorry for the Tooth Fairy. Can't someone marshal a defense of the poor thing?

 

Dark skies.

 

Jack

Personally, I always thought the Tooth Fairy was a cheapskate.  I've been to the dentist -- I know how much a tooth is really worth!


  • Crow Haven likes this

#33 russell23

russell23

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,596
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 23 May 2020 - 04:40 PM

I'm beginning to feel sorry for the Tooth Fairy. Can't someone marshal a defense of the poor thing?

 

Dark skies.

 

Jack

My children often found the tooth fairy seemed to show up mid-morning when they would utter the phrase "The tooth fairy didn't come last night."

 

My wife and I basically decided that in the history of parenting we had to be the worst at executing the tooth fairy requirements.  And as a result we probably corrupted our kid's friends tooth fairy experiences because we were so bad at it they figured it out pretty quickly.  They would actually set little tooth fairy traps for us just to prove it was us.  And they likely went to school and explained to their little friends that had competent tooth fairy parents what was really going on. :)


  • llanitedave and Crow Haven like this

#34 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,392
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 23 May 2020 - 11:12 PM

My children often found the tooth fairy seemed to show up mid-morning when they would utter the phrase "The tooth fairy didn't come last night."

 

My wife and I basically decided that in the history of parenting we had to be the worst at executing the tooth fairy requirements.  And as a result we probably corrupted our kid's friends tooth fairy experiences because we were so bad at it they figured it out pretty quickly.  They would actually set little tooth fairy traps for us just to prove it was us.  And they likely went to school and explained to their little friends that had competent tooth fairy parents what was really going on. smile.gif

Next you're going to tell us they don't believe in Santa Clause!  ohmy.gif

 

What's the world coming to?


  • mountain monk likes this

#35 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,653
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 24 May 2020 - 11:15 AM

Here's a thought for you.

Leaving aside some minor technicalities about simultaneity, there will be someone, somewhere in the universe, who is first. They will look around and conclude they are alone, and wonder why. Perhaps it is us.

And if it were humans that were first, would that be considered special in some way or just yet another highly improbable oddity in the universe?  To make that determination of course you would need life to do it as it would only have such meaning in the context of life with sufficient intelligence because outside of life everything in the universe is meaningless and just a bunch of lifeless junk.  So outside of life the consequence of being first is really meaningless.  And that being the case how could being first ever be special?  And further, if we were the only life and made the determination that we were first, then thinking it was special would of course be an egotistical conclusion (it is actually more than egotistical but impossible as one can never make a determination of first if the universe is in fact infinite). 

 

I think thinking of your thought just takes one round and round in meaningless circles, like everything else in the universe.  Think about that!  Hmmm.  That's interesting.  So everything in the universe, life or non-life, is really just as meaningless as a bunch of dogs chasing their tails (with some of course thinking that is quite special I am sure) lol.gif


Edited by BillP, 24 May 2020 - 11:17 AM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics