Where Is Everybody? Where Are The Aliens?

[Darkstorn]

The clock at the edge of the universe would read much higher due to time dilation.

What's the logic behind that? Because that's basically not true:

"According to the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field. As a result of the nature of spacetime,[2] a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference. A clock that is under the influence of a stronger gravitational field than an observer's will also be measured to tick slower than the observer's own clock."

^^ From "biased" wiki. I suppose your hypothesis there is an example of "creation science:" That is, the appropriation of scientific terms to be used in a nonsensical way to justify a belief.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhh....the boundless infinity of having no container in which the Cosmos rests.
That would mean that there wasn't any original singularity, wouldn't it ?
Or maybe the void, into which everything dissapears, isn't a true reality.
And.....that leads right back to where are those Aliens ?
Those that escaped the boundless void.
Silly isn't it.....but so are any gods !

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nice straw man, but that is not how I am defining "earth-like planet". Here is how I am using the term (from Space.com):

"The planets considered Earth-like are rocky on their surface and about 0.5 to 1.5 times the size of Earth. They also land in the "habitable zone" of their orbiting stars, meaning they fall in the sweet spot of orbital distance — not too close and not too far away — and therefore have the potential to be able to support liquid water on their surfaces. The ability to support water is huge, as it means the planet could have the potential to support life.

Kepler showed us these planets are common in the universe. In fact, we now know there are more potentially habitable planets in our galaxy alone than there are people alive on Earth. One out of every two sun-like stars you see in the night sky has a rocky, Earth-like planet in its habitable zone."

Okay- that's slightly better than most 'earthlike' examples I've seen quoted in the news, but it's only Earth-like in rough size and being in the habitable zone- it says nothing about being tidally locked, having a magnetosphere, or water, or a stabilizing moon, or all the chemistry needed for life etc etc just the 'potential' which is an extremely long shot. Every dot in the sky has 'potential' if we know nothing else

You are incorrect. There are billions of earth-like planets in our galaxy. We have found many of them. And, there are about 100 billion galaxies, so 100 billion galaxies x average of even 1 billion earth like planets (an extremely modest estimate) = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 earth like planets (between .5 and 1.5 earth's size and in the sweet spot of the habitable zone ... could support liquid water, rocky surface, etc.).

You are only 1 zero away from some estimates for the total number of stars in the entire universe, so your calculations are off somewhere! The vast majority of stars are too small, too big, too young, too old, outside the galactic habitable zone.. before you even get into planets.

This is a matter of being thorough, of course an extremely superficial definition of 'earth like' gives you great numbers. Three balls of snow put on top of each other may be described as 'human-like' and from a large enough distance we might think there is potential for a conversation!

 

[james bond]

What's the logic behind that? Because that's basically not true:

"According to the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field. As a result of the nature of spacetime,[2] a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference. A clock that is under the influence of a stronger gravitational field than an observer's will also be measured to tick slower than the observer's own clock."

^^ From "biased" wiki. I suppose your hypothesis there is an example of "creation science:" That is, the appropriation of scientific terms to be used in a nonsensical way to justify a belief.

It's from the special theory of relativity which I've applied.

Time on Earth moves FASTER than in space | Daily Mail Online

Here's another one from the special theory and demonstrates time travel into the future. One can't travel back in time despite the Back to the Future movies. God prevented it and it's further evidence of God. View from around 4:20.

 

[Darkstorn]

It's from the special theory of relativity which I've applied.

Time on Earth moves FASTER than in space | Daily Mail Online

From the article:

"But, considering that Earth is moving through space, does that mean time for us is travelling faster than someone who is stationary? The answer is 'yes', and by about one second per week. "

That's just plain wrong, again:

"According to the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field. As a result of the nature of spacetime,[2] a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference. A clock that is under the influence of a stronger gravitational field than an observer's will also be measured to tick slower than the observer's own clock."

One can't travel back in time despite the Back to the Future movies. God prevented it and it's further evidence of God. View from around 4:20.

Meh.

Your argument sounds like a particularly bad case of apologetics. You need to show the math behind your numbers. It doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis at the moment. At best it's plain nonsensical.

/E: Big edits. It took me a little while to realize DM's mistake.

 

[leibowde84]

It sounds as if you're admitting atheism is based on a logical fallacy, i.e. no evidence of God has been found, so God must not exist. You just replaced aliens with God and then attributed it to me. You just reasoned the same with your absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ha ha. Doh!!!

Wrong again. I've never made that argument or defended it. I have absolutely no idea why you think that your point here applies to me in any way.

I agree, the "atheistic argument" that you are referring to that, because there isn't any verifiable evidence for God's existence, God must not exist is logically flawed in the same way that your argument is. FYI, I do not even believe that God does not exist.

What I reasoned was there are no aliens because they weren't created by the creator which is not the same logic. I use the absence of evidence to back up my logic.

This is another logical fallacy ... namely circular reasoning. You are assuming that aliens don't exist (weren't "created by the creator") in your premise, which is "there are no aliens because they weren't created by the creator". In your beliefs, God created everything, right? So, if aliens weren't created, they can't exist. So, saying that God didn't create aliens synonymous with saying aliens don't exist.

So, you are literally saying "I reasoned there are no aliens because aliens do not exist (weren't created by the creator)". Beyond that, you haven't supported your claims here at all. You haven't provided your evidence that God did not create aliens. Sure, it isn't mentioned in the bible, but, remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The mere fact that it isn't mentioned in the Bible in no way means that god didn't create aliens.

As for God, we have the Resurrection, the Bible and creation science. Just what do you think I've been talking about all these months and on this thread?

Resurrection = absolutely no verifiable evidence that this happened ... all we have are mere claims from ancient, mostly unknown men; The Bible = we don't know who wrote it and we have no way of verifying any of the claims made in it (for the most part), so it isn't a valid source of historical evidence when it comes to the supernatural; Creation Science = not real science, as it assumes that God exists, it assumes that the Bible is accurate, it assumes that God created the universe, and it doesn't work to challenge those assumptions at all ... a.k.a. pseudoscience.

 

[james bond]

Wrong again. I've never made that argument or defended it. I have absolutely no idea why you think that your point here applies to me in any way.

I agree, the "atheistic argument" that you are referring to that, because there isn't any verifiable evidence for God's existence, God must not exist is logically flawed in the same way that your argument is. FYI, I do not even believe that God does not exist.

This is another logical fallacy ... namely circular reasoning. You are assuming that aliens don't exist (weren't "created by the creator") in your premise, which is "there are no aliens because they weren't created by the creator". In your beliefs, God created everything, right? So, if aliens weren't created, they can't exist. So, saying that God didn't create aliens synonymous with saying aliens don't exist.

So, you are literally saying "I reasoned there are no aliens because aliens do not exist (weren't created by the creator)". Beyond that, you haven't supported your claims here at all. You haven't provided your evidence that God did not create aliens. Sure, it isn't mentioned in the bible, but, remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The mere fact that it isn't mentioned in the Bible in no way means that god didn't create aliens.
Resurrection = absolutely no verifiable evidence that this happened ... all we have are mere claims from ancient, mostly unknown men; The Bible = we don't know who wrote it and we have no way of verifying any of the claims made in it (for the most part), so it isn't a valid source of historical evidence when it comes to the supernatural; Creation Science = not real science, as it assumes that God exists, it assumes that the Bible is accurate, it assumes that God created the universe, and it doesn't work to challenge those assumptions at all ... a.k.a. pseudoscience.

I'm glad that you admitted atheism is a logical fallacy. It's just that you have no faith but in atheist science. No aliens shows that the creator did not create aliens. It also shows that evolution doesn't work on other planets despite having more billions of years than us. Thus, why should it work here?

As for the rest, it doesn't make much sense at all, so I'll leave you with your looney tunes opinions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm glad that you admitted atheism is a logical fallacy. It's just that you have no faith but in atheist science. No aliens shows that the creator did not create aliens. It also shows that evolution doesn't work on other planets despite having more billions of years than us. Thus, why should it work here?

As for the rest, it doesn't make much sense at all, so I'll leave you with your looney tunes opinions.

He did no such thing. He merely agreed that your strawman was based upon a logical fallacy, not that atheism is a logical fallacy. In fact theist, such as you, are much more likely to commit a logical fallacy than atheists are. Perhaps you should learn what atheism is first before you try to attack it.

And please, atheists do not need or use faith. That is a flaw that theists have, not atheists.

 

[james bond]

From the article:

"But, considering that Earth is moving through space, does that mean time for us is travelling faster than someone who is stationary? The answer is 'yes', and by about one second per week. "

That's just plain wrong, again:

"According to the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field. As a result of the nature of spacetime,[2] a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference. A clock that is under the influence of a stronger gravitational field than an observer's will also be measured to tick slower than the observer's own clock."



Meh.

Your argument sounds like a particularly bad case of apologetics. You need to show the math behind your numbers. It doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis at the moment. At best it's plain nonsensical.

/E: Big edits. It took me a little while to realize DM's mistake.

I can't discuss science with someone who does not have the capacity to understand it and yet claim that I am wrong. It's ridiculous. All you do is complain about my answers to your questions and then go by what atheist wikipedia goes by. Why are there no aliens? Why is earth a mediocre planet in terms of habitability? If it's mediocre, then there must be more habitable planets and yet there is no life there. It's evolutionary fail. First, atheist science claims that life just happens from primordial soup. They can't produce any life from that, so they try to convince us that earth is mediocre. Thus, where are the humans, plants and animals on other superior habitable planets? Where are the aliens? Next, you'll be telling me that these aliens may not be human. What other types of life do we have? I admit some are very strange, but they're part of earth creatures and carbon life forms.

 

[james bond]

He did no such thing. He merely agreed that your strawman was based upon a logical fallacy, not that atheism is a logical fallacy. In fact theist, such as you, are much more likely to commit a logical fallacy than atheists are. Perhaps you should learn what atheism is first before you try to attack it.

And please, atheists do not need or use faith. That is a flaw that theists have, not atheists.

Atheists use faith in believing the atheist science of evolution. They use faith to back up their evolution religion as shown many times -- common ancestor, tree of life, shared DNA, fossil record, billions and millions of years in the mutations (even new species by natural selection take time to develop than what creationists say) and so on. They even go as far to claim it is fact when it's a theory.

What leibo admitted was, "because there is no evidence of aliens that has been found, aliens must not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is logically fallacious to use the lack of evidence for the existence of aliens as proof that aliens don't exist."

Even creationists do not use this argument because it is logically fallacious; It's based on circular reasoning. We are smarter than that. We do not reply, "Because there is no evidence of God has been found, God must not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is logically fallacious to use the lack of evidence for the existence of God as proof that God doesn't exist."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheists use faith in believing the atheist science of evolution. They use faith to back up their evolution religion as shown many times -- common ancestor, tree of life, shared DNA, fossil record, billions and millions of years in the mutations (even new species by natural selection take time to develop than what creationists say) and so on. They even go as far to claim it is fact when it's a theory.

Nope, you could not be more wrong. Now you may not be able to understand the science, but faith is just not allowed in the sciences. The proper action to take when you do not understand is to ask questions politely and properly, not to make false accusations against others.

First off you are simply wrong when you use the term "atheist science". All real scientists use the same science. Some are atheists, some are not. Some are even Christians. By the way one does not need to believe that myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

What leibo admitted was, "because there is no evidence of aliens that has been found, aliens must not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is logically fallacious to use the lack of evidence for the existence of aliens as proof that aliens don't exist."

Even creationists do not use this argument because it is logically fallacious; It's based on circular reasoning. We are smarter than that. We do not reply, "Because there is no evidence of God has been found, God must not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is logically fallacious to use the lack of evidence for the existence of God as proof that God doesn't exist."

Atheists do not use that argument either. You have no idea what atheists believe. Perhaps you should learn more about others before making false claims about them. Here is a hint, a lack of belief in something, such as fairies, Bigfoot, or God, is not a statement that they do not exist. If you want to claim that your God exists the burden of proof is upon you. Otherwise he is in the same category as Bigfoot and fairies.

 

[Darkstorn]

I can't discuss science with someone who does not have the capacity to understand it and yet claim that I am wrong.

Rofl. I was talking about the article. The article is wrong. They make a mistake in it. Because it's Daily Fail. It's merely incidental that you're also wrong, hard.

The article makes both of these statements:

"But, considering that Earth is moving through space, does that mean time for us is travelling faster than someone who is stationary? The answer is 'yes', and by about one second per week."

"Einstein suggests that the faster you travel, the slower you move through time."

It's ridiculous. All you do is complain about my answers to your questions and then go by what atheist wikipedia goes by.

Wikipedia > Daily Mail. In this case, the paragraph i quoted from Wikipedia IS true. But DM failed to understand the source material in their article and drew the wrong conclusion. It even says so in the article; Read the info box.

Why are there no aliens?

No no no, that's our question to you! You're the one making the claim that the are NO aliens. So, why are there no aliens? Oh right, because "God prevented it and it's further evidence of God. " You can't see how little statements like that do to convince the people you are trying to convince?

Why is earth a mediocre planet in terms of habitability? If it's mediocre, then there must be more habitable planets and yet there is no life there. It's evolutionary fail. First, atheist science claims that life just happens from primordial soup. They can't produce any life from that, so they try to convince us that earth is mediocre. Thus, where are the humans, plants and animals on other superior habitable planets? Where are the aliens?

If you want to be taken seriously, start making some sense, man. You come off as extremely uneducated with stuff like this.

Next, you'll be telling me that these aliens may not be human. What other types of life do we have? I admit some are very strange, but they're part of earth creatures and carbon life forms.

Um, what other types of life than human do we have? Are you seriously asking that question? You don't see how nonsensical it is?

 

[james bond]

Rofl. I was talking about the article. The article is wrong. They make a mistake in it. Because it's Daily Fail. It's merely incidental that you're also wrong, hard.

The article makes both of these statements:

"But, considering that Earth is moving through space, does that mean time for us is travelling faster than someone who is stationary? The answer is 'yes', and by about one second per week."

"Einstein suggests that the faster you travel, the slower you move through time."



Wikipedia > Daily Mail. In this case, the paragraph i quoted from Wikipedia IS true. But DM failed to understand the source material in their article and drew the wrong conclusion. It even says so in the article; Read the info box.



No no no, that's our question to you! You're the one making the claim that the are NO aliens. So, why are there no aliens? Oh right, because "God prevented it and it's further evidence of God. " You can't see how little statements like that do to convince the people you are trying to convince?



If you want to be taken seriously, start making some sense, man. You come off as extremely uneducated with stuff like this.



Um, what other types of life than human do we have? Are you seriously asking that question? You don't see how nonsensical it is?

TLDR. I don't think you understand any of the stuff you post and you're an argumentative person. Neither do you understand creation science. You don't even understand atheist science or evolution and evolutionary thinking.

Answer me this. What do creationists believe in terms of the earth and the universe? When were they created? Thus, how old are they to each other (I'm not looking for an answer in chronological years)?

Why don't you explain in your own words what you mean sometimes, instead of copying and pasting from wikipedia, so we can all understand what you're saying? That would be a start ha ha. (I could have just as easy told you to google Dr. Russel Humphreys and the Distant Starlight Problem. That's creation science.) Furthermore, anyone who can't appreciate Ryan Chester's video and Einstein's special theory of relativity, does not have the intellectual capacity for science. I'm tired of answering internet atheists questions in order for them to have fodder for their garbage opinions.

 

[Darkstorn]

TLDR. I don't think you understand any of the stuff you post and you're an argumentative person.

You start this sentence with "too long, didn't read." And you accuse me of not understanding any of the stuff i post? And you're not an argumentative person? You'll just spout unsupported arguments and claims and make fun of atheists half the time in your posts. How delusional can you possibly be???

Furthermore, after the performance you've shown here, you don't get to make claims of people not understanding their own arguments. Yours are just nonsensical.

Neither do you understand creation science. You don't even understand atheist science or evolution and evolutionary thinking.

You have not in any way shown that i don't understand any of those things. You are merely saying it as an attempt at convincing yourself.

Answer me this. What do creationists believe in terms of the earth and the universe?

That both were created by an uncreated wizard.

When were they created? Thus, how old are they to each other (I'm not looking for an answer in chronological years)?

I suppose that depends on the creationist. And whatever you mean by "not looking for an answer in chronological years".

Why don't you explain in your own words what you mean sometimes, instead of copying and pasting from wikipedia, so we can all understand what you're saying?

I usually don't quote Wikipedia, but explain my own way. In fact, i usually don't even argue people's particular viewpoints; Only the weakness of their arguments. I think this only reduces the value of your claims about my behaviour. Because you're making even more uninformed and untrue claims about me.

But fine: The Daily Mail article is wrong because it gets it exactly backwards, as explained by the actual expert quotes on the very same article. In the post YOU are quoting, i am not quoting Wikipedia at all. I am ONLY quoting Daily Mail. Your own source. Is that good enough?

YOU get it wrong because you invented the numbers out of your backside and didn't do the proper math to come to them. Simple as that. You still have not answered my question as to the logic of your claim:

"The explanation of the problem of the young earth and universe (they're the same age in creation science) is the clock being placed at the edge of the universe reads billions of years old and the same clock being placed on earth reads thousands of years old. The clock at the edge of the universe would read much higher due to time dilation."

I will accept this explanation as entirely true if you will show it to be true. Show me the math. Show me the logic. Right now it's just you inventing a claim. You didn't prove it, i don't need to disprove it.

That would be a start ha ha.

Ha ha.

Ha.

(I could have just as easy told you to google Dr. Russel Humphreys and the Distant Starlight Problem. That's creation science.)

No, that's unmitigated crap.

Furthermore, anyone who can't appreciate Ryan Chester's video and Einstein's special theory of relativity, does not have the intellectual capacity for science.

I appreciate them just fine. I just feel you don't understand them, like your responses would suggest. You use them as justification for your nonsensical claims.

I'm tired of answering internet atheists questions in order for them to have fodder for their garbage opinions.

Then stop posting garbage opinions.

 

[james bond]

Anyway, before I was rudely interrupted, the search for aliens continues. I just don't want it on the taxpayers dime since some of us are intelligent enough to understand there are NO ALIENS because God didn't create aliens.

Life in Space - Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

The next question that comes up is why alien life is rare? Why is it that alien life is rare when evolution and evolutionary thinking says there should be plentiful evidence of them. Instead, evolution.berkeley.edu admits that they are rare. They won't admit non-existent. The rarity goes to show that atheist scientists who think the mediocrity principle are WRONG. "The mediocrity principle is the philosophical notion (which may also be expressed as a probabilistic argument ) that "if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories".[1] The principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth's history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation."

What is galling to me is that it is opposite the Christian notion that the earth is "special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior."

"It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior." See below.

I usually don't like to refer to atheist and liberal wikipedia, but in this case, it's cause to throw it right back in their faces.

Mediocrity principle - Wikipedia

After all, we have had 200,000 years, in terms of modern humans, to make alien contact, but they haven't. If it's not where is everybody, then it's where is the evolutionary evidence? Did evolution only happen here? I think the assumption is that it should happen on other planets, but it's that the chance of it happening are rare. Isn't that what evolution.berkeley.edu is implying? They ask are we alone? The answer is yes according to creation science.

"Some scientists think that this lack of contact in itself is evidence that intelligent life is rare."

Are We Alone?

 

[ChristineM]

Anyway, before I was rudely interrupted, the search for aliens continues. I just don't want it on the taxpayers dime since some of us are intelligent enough to understand there are NO ALIENS because God didn't create aliens.

Life in Space - Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

The next question that comes up is why alien life is rare? Why is it that alien life is rare when evolution and evolutionary thinking says there should be plentiful evidence of them. Instead, evolution.berkeley.edu admits that they are rare. They won't admit non-existent. The rarity goes to show that atheist scientists who think the mediocrity principle are WRONG. "The mediocrity principle is the philosophical notion (which may also be expressed as a probabilistic argument ) that "if an item is drawn at random from one of several sets or categories, it's likelier to come from the most numerous category than from any one of the less numerous categories".[1] The principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth's history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation."

What is galling to me is that it is opposite the Christian notion that the earth is "special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior."

"It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior." See below.

I usually don't like to refer to atheist and liberal wikipedia, but in this case, it's cause to throw it right back in their faces.

Mediocrity principle - Wikipedia

After all, we have had 200,000 years, in terms of modern humans, to make alien contact, but they haven't. If it's not where is everybody, then it's where is the evolutionary evidence? Did evolution only happen here? I think the assumption is that it should happen on other planets, but it's that the chance of it happening are rare. Isn't that what evolution.berkeley.edu is implying? They ask are we alone? The answer is yes according to creation science.

"Some scientists think that this lack of contact in itself is evidence that intelligent life is rare."

Are We Alone?

So when you asked god whether he made aliens, what exactly did he tell you?

And where do you get the idea evolution says there should be aliens? Please provide citation. Its true that the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts life but im pretty certainly the study of evolution only applies to what can be studied.


As for the rest TLDR

 

[james bond]

So when you asked god whether he made aliens, what exactly did he tell you?

And where do you get the idea evolution says there should be aliens? Please provide citation. Its true that the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts life but im pretty certainly the study of evolution only applies to what can be studied.


As for the rest TLDR

I didn't ask God that, but he probably would've said, "No aliens."

I would say evolutionary thinking would state that there would be life on other planets including intelligent life. For years, I heard that life just happens all over the universe from abiogenesis, chemistry and evolutionary thinkers. I think abiogenesis was a big topic when I started here on RF around September 2016.

Remember this one you gave me?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

@It Aint Necessarily So gave me a whole bunch just to demonstrate I was wrong about Miller-Urey updates instead of providing solid evidence for abiogenesis. I can't blame him. He didn't have anything either, but puffery.

Some significant experiments that demonstrate testable predictions of abiogenesis are:

Inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - http://www.abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf

Amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/909793

Ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule)- Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
RNA to primitive ribosomes (basic molecular machine)- biology-direct.com/content/5/1/36
Abiogenesis and the origin of life - Topix poster Dogen

45 papers on abiogenesis abiogenesis - PubMed - NCBI 656 on Origins of life "origins of life" - PubMed - NCBI

"Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab" http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Molecules The Origin of Life

Protocell formation: A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle : Nature Communications A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle : Nature Communications

Protocells make RNA nucleotides - nonenzymatic RNA copying succeeded inside a fatty acid vesicle. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html

Protocells which ingest, replicate, mature and divide http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150929/ncomms9352/full/ncomms9352.html

A protobiont so life-like, that certain marine bacteria respond to it as if it were living prey
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v1/n5/full/nchem.296.html

Protocells which grow, catalyze and compete http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v5/n6/full/nchem.1650.html

Protocell membranes which selectively absorb molecules and grow http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v6/n6/full/nchem.1921.html

Protocells which grow and spontaneously divide, accompanied by distribution of the DNA to the daughter vesicles http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n10/full/nchem.1127.html

Protocell membranes allow the passage of nucleotides, which then take part in efficient template copying in the protocell interior. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18528332

Protocell research which demonstrates electron transfer reactions http://astrobiology.com/2014/03/fuel-cells-may-have-answers-to-origin-of-life-on-earth.html

If life started abiogenically on earth, then inorganics should form organics under early earth conditions -----> This hypothesis tested and confirmed with the spontaneous generation of 30 different amino acids from simple inorganics, under a variety of early earth conditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment#Recent_related_studies

If life started abiogenically on earth, then organics should form more complex organics under early earth conditions ----->This hypothesis tested and confirmed by the reactions of the organic formamide, which produces all four ribonucleotides and other biological molecules when warmed in the presence of various terrestrial minerals. Formamide is common in the Universe, produced by the reaction of water and hydrogen cyanide.
From the one-carbon amide formamide to RNA all the steps are prebiotically possible. - PubMed - NCBI
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100614101957.htm

If life started abiogenically on earth, then complex organics should have formed pre-cell like structures under early earth conditions. ----->This hypothesis tested and confirmed by a self organized cell structure - a protocell formed from lipid molecules - which self-proliferates for multiple generations and exhibits a primitive model cell cycle comprising four discrete phases of ingestion, replication, maturity and division.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9352

If the above led to some breakthrough, then where is it?

To the contrary, Louis Pasteur's experiment demonstrated why life by abiogenesis or chemistry doesn't happen. He set up a swan necked flask and boiled a solution of sugar and yeast for several hours. Then he left the flask unsealed for the free exchange of air with the outside environment for weeks. No microbes developed without the outside air getting in. Thus, creation science says, "Life only begins from other life."

Dr. Duane Gish explained that 1) There was early presence of free oxygen because the earth has always had an atmosphere of free oxygen. However, early presence of free oxygen would have destroyed all the origin of life schemes by evolutionary thinkers, so they claim that it wasn't there. 2) All forms of raw energy, i.e. the solar radiation, electrical discharges from lightning and radioactive decay and hear are destructive to biological molecules. The only reason Miller-Urey succeeded in obtaining small amounts because they used a trap to isolate his products from the energy source. 3) The evolutionary scenario for origin of life is too cluttered. They would not have the right amino acids to form proteins. 4) Micromolecules do not spontaneously form macromolecules. There was no self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. 5) DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms. Primitive planet earth would have many DNA-damaging agents to contend with such as water. All of it was disclaimed as Gish Gallop.

Here's a compilation of TED talks on aliens and another link based on your request for links. It seems that the majority admit life is rare. I still say life is non-existent in other places, but respect those like @jonathan180iq who take a definite stand and provide an argument or evidence instead of just criticizing and avoiding the issue and questions.

Extraterrestrial life | TED.com

What do aliens look like? The clue is in evolution

What this thread pointed out to me was that some evolutionary thinkers on RF have admitted that life is rare aside from the Big Planet E, but I doubt it changes their minds that life only begins from other life.

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't ask God that, but he probably would've said, "No aliens."

I would say evolutionary thinking would state that there would be life on other planets including intelligent life. For years, I heard that life just happens all over the universe from abiogenesis, chemistry and evolutionary thinkers. I think abiogenesis was a big topic when I started here on RF around September 2016.

Remember this one you gave me?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

@It Aint Necessarily So gave me a whole bunch just to demonstrate I was wrong about Miller-Urey updates instead of providing solid evidence for abiogenesis. I can't blame him. He didn't have anything either, but puffery.

Some significant experiments that demonstrate testable predictions of abiogenesis are:

Inorganic matter to amino acids (organic matter) - http://www.abenteuer-universum.de/pdf/miller_1953.pdf

Amino acids to ribonucleotides - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/909793

Ribonucleotides to RNA (self-replicating molecule)- Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory
RNA to primitive ribosomes (basic molecular machine)- biology-direct.com/content/5/1/36
Abiogenesis and the origin of life - Topix poster Dogen

45 papers on abiogenesis abiogenesis - PubMed - NCBI 656 on Origins of life "origins of life" - PubMed - NCBI

"Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab" http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Molecules The Origin of Life

Protocell formation: A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle : Nature Communications A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle : Nature Communications

Protocells make RNA nucleotides - nonenzymatic RNA copying succeeded inside a fatty acid vesicle. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/new-szostak-pro.html

Protocells which ingest, replicate, mature and divide http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150929/ncomms9352/full/ncomms9352.html

A protobiont so life-like, that certain marine bacteria respond to it as if it were living prey
http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v1/n5/full/nchem.296.html

Protocells which grow, catalyze and compete http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v5/n6/full/nchem.1650.html

Protocell membranes which selectively absorb molecules and grow http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v6/n6/full/nchem.1921.html

Protocells which grow and spontaneously divide, accompanied by distribution of the DNA to the daughter vesicles http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/v3/n10/full/nchem.1127.html

Protocell membranes allow the passage of nucleotides, which then take part in efficient template copying in the protocell interior. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18528332

Protocell research which demonstrates electron transfer reactions http://astrobiology.com/2014/03/fuel-cells-may-have-answers-to-origin-of-life-on-earth.html

If life started abiogenically on earth, then inorganics should form organics under early earth conditions -----> This hypothesis tested and confirmed with the spontaneous generation of 30 different amino acids from simple inorganics, under a variety of early earth conditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment#Recent_related_studies

If life started abiogenically on earth, then organics should form more complex organics under early earth conditions ----->This hypothesis tested and confirmed by the reactions of the organic formamide, which produces all four ribonucleotides and other biological molecules when warmed in the presence of various terrestrial minerals. Formamide is common in the Universe, produced by the reaction of water and hydrogen cyanide.
From the one-carbon amide formamide to RNA all the steps are prebiotically possible. - PubMed - NCBI
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100614101957.htm

If life started abiogenically on earth, then complex organics should have formed pre-cell like structures under early earth conditions. ----->This hypothesis tested and confirmed by a self organized cell structure - a protocell formed from lipid molecules - which self-proliferates for multiple generations and exhibits a primitive model cell cycle comprising four discrete phases of ingestion, replication, maturity and division.
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9352

If the above led to some breakthrough, then where is it?

To the contrary, Louis Pasteur's experiment demonstrated why life by abiogenesis or chemistry doesn't happen. He set up a swan necked flask and boiled a solution of sugar and yeast for several hours. Then he left the flask unsealed for the free exchange of air with the outside environment for weeks. No microbes developed without the outside air getting in. Thus, creation science says, "Life only begins from other life."

Dr. Duane Gish explained that 1) There was early presence of free oxygen because the earth has always had an atmosphere of free oxygen. However, early presence of free oxygen would have destroyed all the origin of life schemes by evolutionary thinkers, so they claim that it wasn't there. 2) All forms of raw energy, i.e. the solar radiation, electrical discharges from lightning and radioactive decay and hear are destructive to biological molecules. The only reason Miller-Urey succeeded in obtaining small amounts because they used a trap to isolate his products from the energy source. 3) The evolutionary scenario for origin of life is too cluttered. They would not have the right amino acids to form proteins. 4) Micromolecules do not spontaneously form macromolecules. There was no self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. 5) DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms. Primitive planet earth would have many DNA-damaging agents to contend with such as water. All of it was disclaimed as Gish Gallop.

Here's a compilation of TED talks on aliens and another link based on your request for links. It seems that the majority admit life is rare. I still say life is non-existent in other places, but respect those like @jonathan180iq who take a definite stand and provide an argument or evidence instead of just criticizing and avoiding the issue and questions.

Extraterrestrial life | TED.com

What do aliens look like? The clue is in evolution

What this thread pointed out to me was that some evolutionary thinkers on RF have admitted that life is rare aside from the Big Planet E, but I doubt it changes their minds that life only begins from other life.

Ah right so you are guessing. That's the way it goes.

Then reams of speculation that i glanced at but never bothered to respond to because... Those links on the subject under discussion are speculation, the other's are as far as this thread is concerned, spam.

Now to the point of this thread. Whether alien life, exists, is rare or common is moot, we don't know. That is the only valid answer.

Given the limit imposed by light speed, unless major advances in technology occur and trump does not completely shut of scientific funding then chances are we'll never visit other planets outside our solar system, in your lifetime or mine anyway.

However there is another way

Current observations show there are trillions of suns our there (many thousands are easy to see with the naked eye on as clear night). The majority (if not all) hold planets in their gravitational field. Also observations show that around 10% to 20% of the suns that we know that have planets have at least one planet in the Goldilocks habitable zone and are of a mass (hence gravity) to sustain life. It has also been measured that several of those planets have water in their atmosphere.

As you probably know water is prerequisite for life as we understand it.

Now as to whether those planets contain life, back to square one. Given our present level of technology, we just don't know. But astronomers, chemists, satellite engineers and other related experts are working to build a satellite that should be capable of more precisely measuring atmospheres of far distant planets which will show signs of life if such life exists.

Finding Life Beyond Earth is Within Reach


Edit, i do not believe that link you claim is one of mine actually is one of mine, its certainly not what i would use, its too speculative. However if you would provide the post number which as you say, provided that link it would help

 

[siti]

The explanation of the problem of the young earth and universe (they're the same age in creation science) is the clock being placed at the edge of the universe reads billions of years old and the same clock being placed on earth reads thousands of years old. The clock at the edge of the universe would read much higher due to time dilation.

Hmmm! When did you start experiencing these hallucinations Mr. Bond?

As for observational data of the universe, you're basing the findings on BBT based on the Copernican principle. I would think that assumption is an arbitrary one such as the map which you posted.

Whereas the assumption that the earth - and human life - is not only dead center but the entire purpose of the vast universe is a perfectly rational interpretation of the actual data...provided one ignores the evidence of astronomy, biology, cosmology, ...well you get the idea.

 

[Polymath257]

It's from the special theory of relativity which I've applied.

Time on Earth moves FASTER than in space | Daily Mail Online

Here's another one from the special theory and demonstrates time travel into the future. One can't travel back in time despite the Back to the Future movies. God prevented it and it's further evidence of God. View from around 4:20.

Sorry, but you clearly do NOT understand he special theory of relativity.

First, and most important for your argument, the time dilation effect goes both ways: if two observers are moving with respect to each other, BOTH see the clocks of the other as moving slower. It is a symmetric situation. How it is possible for both to see the other clocks as going slower is called the Twin Paradox and is resolved in relativity by taking into account acceleration.

It is NOT the case that time moves faster at the edge of the universe.