RNA reactor could have served as a precursor of life

Jul 11, 2011 by Lisa Zyga feature
In the RNA reactor, nucleotides accumulate in a narrow pore due to a temperature gradient. Due to bond formation and hybridization of RNA strands, weak information transmission can occur: information can be conserved beyond the lifetime of a single molecule. Image credit: Obermayer, et al. ©2011 American Physical Society

(PhysOrg.com) -- Nobody knows quite how life originated on Earth, but most scientists agree that living cells did not abruptly appear from nonliving cells in a single step. Instead, there were probably a series of pre-cellular life forms that arose from nonliving chemicals and eventually led to a living cell, one that could undergo metabolism and reproduce. One of the most well-known theories of pre-cellular life is the RNA world theory, which proposes that life based on RNA predates current life, which is based on DNA, RNA, and proteins. But recently, scientists have been wondering what may have preceded RNA. In a new study, a team of scientists from Germany has suggested that the ability to self-replicate may have first emerged in the form of an RNA reactor, which they show can transmit information.

The scientists, Benedikt Obermayer, Hubert Krammer, Dieter Braun, and Ulrich Gerland of the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, have published their study on the prebiotic RNA reactor in a recent issue of .

The biggest piece of support for as pre-life forms is that RNA can act as both genes (to store information) and enzymes (to catalyze chemical reactions). Like , RNA is made up of a long chain of . However, scientists do not know how a self-replicating RNA system could have arisen from a pool of random polynucleotides.

To address this question, Obermayer, et al., have turned to RNA replicators. As described in previous research, RNA replicators can transmit information from one molecule to another so that the information survives even when the original carrier molecules have become degraded. Here, the researchers have investigated how RNA replicators may have arisen from simpler RNA reactors billions of years ago.

“We show that a combination of simple physico-chemical mechanisms can greatly facilitate the spontaneous emergence of a prebiotic evolutionary system, such as envisaged by the RNA world,” Gerland told PhysOrg.com.

Using , the scientists analyzed a scenario in which a hydrothermal RNA reactor emerges with the ability to perform intermolecular information transmission. The scene begins inside porous rocks on the sea floor, where strong temperature gradients produce thermal convection, and the convective flow transports molecules inside the narrow pores. Due to temperature variations, nucleotides in the pores accumulate in a small region and randomly form bonds with one another. Through folding and hybridization, the polynucleotides can form longer sequences, eventually resulting in RNA strands.

One of the key factors that allows the formation of RNA strands is the preferential cleavage (splitting) of bonds at unpaired bases. This effect creates a selection pressure for base pairing, and leads to an increase in the complexity and lifetime of RNA structures. One such structure that could emerge as a result is a primitive ribozyme – or “RNA enzyme” – which can catalyze as a component of a true RNA replicator.

Most importantly, the computer simulations showed that the RNA reactor can perform weak replication based on information transmission by hybridization of the RNA strands. As the researchers explained, evidence of information transmission appears as an unexpected increase in the lifetime of certain sequences.

“Hybridization simultaneously protects a sequence motif and its complement from degradation,” Gerland explained. “Thereby, it extends not only the lifetime of the sequence motif, but also the lifetime of its complement, which in turn can protect other copies of the sequence motif after dissociation. This constitutes a form of information transmission between molecules, since it can conserve the information in the sequence motif beyond the lifetime of a single molecule.”

Overall, the computer simulations showed that the prebiotic RNA reactor could serve as a stepping stone toward the emergence of a true RNA replicator. Acting as a filter to keep potentially useful sequences of nucleotides, the RNA reactor could lead to complex sequences, such as ribozymes. Once ribozymes emerge from an RNA reactor, they could establish an efficient self-replicating system in the form of an replicator. In the future, the researchers hope that they might be able to experimentally demonstrate such a process.

“The experimental investigation of this scenario is indeed a very exciting direction to explore,” Gerland said. “We believe it is possible to realize essential aspects of the scenario in the lab, on a small scale. We are working towards that end.”

Explore further: X-ray powder diffraction beamline at NSLS-II takes first beam and first data

More information: Benedikt Obermayer, et al. “Emergence of Information Transmission in a Prebiotic RNA Reactor.” Physical Review Letters 107, 018101 (2011) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.018101

4.7 /5 (28 votes)

Related Stories

Closing a loophole in the RNA World Hypothesis

Jan 15, 2007

New scientific research may close a major loophole in the RNA world hypothesis, the idea that ribonucleic acid -- not the fabled DNA that makes up genes in people and other animals -- was the key to life's emergence on Earth ...

Recommended for you

Particles, waves and ants

Nov 26, 2014

Animals looking for food or light waves moving through turbid media – astonishing similarities have now been found between completely different phenomena.

User comments : 103

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

thales
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 11, 2011
This is fascinating work. Obviously highly speculative, but then the most interesting work often is. One valuable outcome of this may be to improve our ability to calculate the odds of life spontaneously arising. Which of course impacts the Drake equation.

And how awesome would it be to evolve simple lifeforms from scratch in software based on real physical processes?
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (35) Jul 11, 2011
The very structure of the DNA molecule is a testament to the fact that it is designed to PREVENT any random physical or chemical process from being able to copy it!!!
The make up is such that it keeps non-living items from becoming interfering obstacles to the processes required for life.
The whole DNA molecule is simply a storehouse/storage facility for information. That information could have been placed in various forms, not necessarily the amino acids and sugar bases found in DNA. The information required for life is stored in the arrangement of the building blocks, not the blocks themselves. So having an RNA molucule arising spontaneously from pond scum is the same as having a users manual for a Jumbo jet being thrown together by random forces.Extremely improbable.
Please spare me the "all things are possible, given time" argument - it doesn't work because each re-arrangement requires energy and there's not enough of it in the whole universe to try out all the combinations.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2011
One valuable outcome of this may be to improve our ability to calculate the odds of life spontaneously arising. Which of course impacts the Drake equation.

While the article is interesting it certainly won't make any difference to calculating the odds of life arising spontaneously.

There are many factors at work which influence the propensity for life - and singular events (like the first appearance of life) lie outside the scope of statistics anyhow (for valid statistics you need to have many occurences - but since life only ever evolves once in one place that prerequisite isn't met)

From a mathematical and information-theoretical standpoint the Drake equation is absolutely useless. Any equation that contains one factor which is mere guesswork is completely pointless. The Drake equations contains four or five such factors.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 11, 2011
The whole DNA molecule is simply a storehouse/storage facility for information.
Thats right. It is a record of lifes successful interaction with all the environments it has had to contend with, throughout its long history of existance and development.

We are just learning how to read this record and have increasing confidence that one day soon we will be able to understand it all. Every bit of it. Including how it gets started and how to manipulate it to our advantage.

This should worry people like you quite a bit.
Scottingham
5 / 5 (17) Jul 11, 2011
That there's sure heck of a lot of words. I like 'God did it', easier for me to understand as I crack open my bud.

PS - JK/LOL
TheRedComet
4 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2011
@ kevinrtrs
Thats great you can never be wrong with your method of debate. If you can call it a debate. Your response to a rebuttal is to disconnect the rebuttal from the refute. In order to reset the question in a more ambiguous standard.
whoyagonacal
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2011
That there's sure heck of a lot of words. I like 'God did it', easier for me to understand as I crack open my bud.


Yeah, I wish KVTRS would keep it short and simple. It's always the same song and dance, I just glance at it and I've got it all -- why bother with the overhead?
T2Nav
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2011
Is Kevin using his scientific knowledge to imply that a magical omnipotent boogeyman who no one has ever seen is the only plausible answer to our novel and complex DNA?
pauljpease
4.5 / 5 (16) Jul 11, 2011
The very structure of the DNA molecule is a testament to the fact that it is designed to PREVENT any random physical or chemical process from being able to copy it!!!
The make up is such that it keeps non-living items from becoming interfering obstacles to the processes required for life.


Sorry, but I've actually spent years of my life studying the structure of DNA. You're just plain wrong. The structure of the DNA molecule lends itself perfectly to moderate mutation rates and allows for one of the most important mechanisms that allow for evolution to occur, homologous recombination (where stretches of DNA are joined together if they have some overlapping sequence, so called mixing and matching, so that you can shuffle entire genes to get new combinations).
Pyle
4 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2011
From a mathematical and information-theoretical standpoint the Drake equation is absolutely useless. Any equation that contains one factor which is mere guesswork is completely pointless. The Drake equations contains four or five such factors.
Of course the equation is guesswork. Of course it is "useless". What were you going to do with it? The whole point is to give us an idea about how common/uncommon life may be in the cosmos. You can't really do anything with that knowledge except feel better about reaching out to our neighbors.

But yeah, the Drake equation is "useless". So what. Its still fun to talk about it.
barakn
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2011
The Drake equation may be less useless than you think. People are as liable to underestimate as overestimate the various factors, meaning that when multiplied together they might give a reasonable answer quite by accident. Also some of the factors have very strong lower bounds, while the lack of communication with an alien intelligence provides an upper bound for the whole thing, which may provide some guidance on which way some of the factors need to be tweaked.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2011
Is Kevin using his scientific knowledge to imply that a magical omnipotent boogeyman who no one has ever seen is the only plausible answer to our novel and complex DNA?
Yes.

Sorry barakin. iPhone mishap.
Sonhouse
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2011
Is Kevin using his scientific knowledge to imply that a magical omnipotent boogeyman who no one has ever seen is the only plausible answer to our novel and complex DNA?


Nope, he is clearly just another irrational creationist trying to distract people with unending rhetoric, thinking if you throw enough irrational thought at us, some of it will stick, kind of like how very thin mud can stick to a wall, thrown from 30 feet away, he hopes some of it will stick.
malapropism
3.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2011
@KevTRS, what *are* you on about?

1. The article was about RNA not DNA.
2. Who says the copy processes are in any way random?
3. Your second paragraph doesn't even make sense.
4. The kind of information being described is chemically-based and it's very debatable whether it could be successfully stored and/or transmitted in any other form in an organic system.
5. The RNA molecule (or molucule [sic] if you prefer) is not arising spontaneously, there are numerous precursors and processes as is well explained in the article.
6. The jumbo jet and it's user manual are non-organic, non-evolving systems so your analogy here falls over.
7. The random, spontaneous formation of your deity is likely about as probable as your fallacious user manual example.
8. Not all combinations have to be tried, some are just plain impossible due to thermodynamics.

9. Finally, taking minor issue with @pauljpease (apologies pjp) - you have so little understanding of this topic you are not even wrong.
Vangarde_Hammerfall
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2011
I for one love the creationists highly thought out, totally rational POV towards the deep and troubling questions of the universe as they are capable of providing me with countless hours of entertainment I mean the idea of Super Boogeyman in the sky makes much more sense than logical experimentaion and testing. Wouldn't you agree
malapropism
5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2011
@Vangarde, well, I agree that without them the forums here would be a lot less amusing.

And yes, their PoV on the deep philosophical questions of life and the universe and their insistence on on the existence of some magical, invisible, omnipotent and omniscient being (the "Super Boogeyman") certainly has some entertainment value.

The worrisome aspect is how frighteningly Medieval it all is (in the worst sense) and how much they are listened to in some countries and in certain areas of society. I for one certainly don't take their dogmatic ravings lightly because I think they hold back civilisation and enlightened advancement in a very substantive way.
Magnette
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2011
@Malapropism...
I wouldn't waste your time setting out a reasoned argument for Kevinrtrs, he's a hit and run creationist who seems to think that not debating the point means that he's won that round.
You can just see him in the bar with his creationist buddies telling them how he put everybody straight on Physorg.

Apologies for making this a personal post and not relevant to the subject.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2011
The Drake equation may be less useless than you think. People are as liable to underestimate as overestimate the various factors, meaning that when multiplied together they might give a reasonable answer quite by accident.

Which is the entire point: If the usefulness of an equation is accidental then it holds no predictive value whatsoever (only by accident - and then rolling some dice will give you a similar chance of coming up with the 'right' answer. did rolling the dice help in any way? No. )

With multiplicative formulae (like the Drake equation) the problem is even worse: No amount of 'lucky guessing' will get you a 'right' answer if one factor is zero.

It's the old story: Asking chinese people to estimate the length of the emperor's nose and then taking the average and declaring it the result - because you aren't allowed to go into the forbidden city to measure it yourself.
Does that help in establishing what is really the length of the emperor's nose? No.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
while the lack of communication with an alien intelligence provides an upper bound for the whole thing,

This upper bound is on VERY shaky ground. So shaky as to be completely unsupportable.
There may be many reasons they don't communicate with us while the galaxy is filled to the brim with them (or completely empty). Just some examples:
- They have agreed not to mess with primitives (like we try to hide when studying animals so as not to cause unnatural behavior)
- There is nothing they could gain from contact with us
- The have a means of travelling at light speed (or even faster through some, yet to us unknown, method) - at which point communication via electromagnetic radiation would be absolutely pointless for them.
- ...

The fact that we don't notice any aliens whizzing about tells us nothing.
dogbert
1 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2011
The fact that we don't notice any aliens whizzing about tells us nothing.


The fact that we have found no indication of life anywhere but on earth does inform us that the probabilities for life may be considerably less than we may have hoped.
antialias
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2011
Well, we haven't exactly looked a lot of places. We haven't even taken a single instrument to another planet/moon/asteroid that could detect life directly.

There's life on earth kilometers deep down that feeds on radioactivity.

http://www.scienc...2814.htm

We could even see such life within our solar system. And we haven't even *begun* to check the most promising spots (Europa, IO, Titan, Mars polar caps, The ice in lunar craters, ... ). Additionally: 'digging down' hasn't even started *anywhere*, yet.

So saying that there is 'no indication of life' anywhere is a bit premature, don't you think? It's like someone sitting in a dark room saying: There is no light anywhere in the universe - without even trying to open a window first.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2011
So saying that there is 'no indication of life' anywhere is a bit premature, don't you think?
Dogbert is the person that gave every post that laughed at Kevin's idiotic post a one. He is a Creationist but refuses to admit it.

I think he has a problem with life on other planets that is based on his religious beliefs. Sure isn't based on evidence since there just isn't any evidence against life existing elsewhere. There is evidence that life could exist elsewhere so there really isn't reason to think it can't.

I think it is pretty rare but my reasoning is based on the Earth and it's really big moon so I could be full of it. The big moon is the main thing for me. Secondarily I suspect the center of the galaxy, which has most of the stars, may be very inhospitable to complex life and maybe even simple life. That still leaves a lot of planets in this galaxy.

We need more data points to have more than a wild assed guess and that is all the Drake equation can be till then.

Ethelred
antialias
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
Sure isn't based on evidence since there just isn't any evidence against life existing elsewhere.

Since we usually deride that argument (i.e. laugh at the argument that there isn't any evidence against god) we shouldn't use it ourselves.

The fact is we haven't looked anywhere for life with any kind of rigor so the jury on that one is still out. "I don't know" is a completely acceptable stance in such circumstances.

Life as we know it is adapted to earth-type environments. We just don't know what types of environments can harbor life or what shapes it can take. Can there be life that is non-DNA/RNA based? We just don't know. A drawback of life is that it is competitive. Once one type gets a head start any other types don't stand a chance in hell within the same macroenvironment.

There are still too many unknowns to make any kinds of statements about the frequency of life anywhere else. We have one datapoint - this is not a viable starting point for statistical analysis.
Ethelred
2.4 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2011
Since we usually deride that argument (i.e. laugh at the argument that there isn't any evidence against god)
I don't laugh at it. I am Agnostic. I laugh at claims that there isn't any evidence against Jehovah as described in Genesis though. That god is disproved.

we shouldn't use it ourselves.
I pointed that there is no evidence either way. Didn't you notice?

The fact is we haven't looked anywhere for life with any kind of rigor
I agree with that.

Life as we know it is adapted to earth-type environments.
A=A.

We just don't know what types of environments can harbor life or what shapes it can take.
We actually do know. What we don't know is the LIMITS beyond water based life can't live without it in liquid form.

Can there be life that is non-DNA/RNA based?
Yes. We don't have to see it to know that chemistry does not preclude similar structures. Complex life will need something open ended like those chemicals.>>
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2011
Once one type gets a head start any other types
I hope you are referring to the earliest forms of life since clearly that does not apply to present life. And no we don't know that. It might be that only one form of life got started early.

There are still too many unknowns to make any kinds of statements about the frequency of life anywhere else.
We can't make definitive statements with any real expectation of matching reality beyond some broad limits. Such as the center of the Galaxy for complex life. Too bloody unstable.

this is not a viable starting point for statistical analysis.
I said we needed more points. Still there are other things than statistics. We know that complex life took a long time to get started and there is no reason to think that was a fluke. That plus the evidence that many solar systems have stability issues, the hot gas giants make that clear, indicates that complex life is going to have a hard time of it.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2011
Yes that could be wrong but I think it likely. And since the Sun, all suns, heat up over time, life has only so long to evolve complexity before the water boils off. Red dwarfs might have better odds for complex life because of that.

Ethelred
antialias
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2011
I hope you are referring to the earliest forms of life since clearly that does not apply to present life. And no we don't know that. It might be that only one form of life got started early.

Yes. I was referring to the type of life (DNA/RNA based) which we have. If other types had a go then they came too late and were thoroughly eradicated by 'our' type of life.

all suns, heat up over time, life has only so long to evolve complexity before the water boils off.

The bacteria living on radioactives do not require liquid water to be present in the environment (they make it themselves). There can also be other forms of head (e.g. tidal friction or radioactivity near a planet/moon core) which could give life the time to evolve - even in the absence of a sun.
antialias
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2011
We know that complex life took a long time to get started and there is no reason to think that was a fluke.
That, too, is just one datapoint. From one datapoint you cannot deduce any upper limit to the speed of the development of life (just a lower limit. We can now state that life can evolve as quickly as it did on earth and that it doesn't require a longer start) .... If it originated on earth at all - which is another unanswered (and probably unanswerable) question.

Such as the center of the Galaxy for complex life. Too bloody unstable.

Since we don't know what forns life can take beyond the DNA/RNA-type we don't know whether there could be a more stable form. With life already having been discovered kilometers below the Earth's surface there could be even places near the galactic center that are shielded enough. We'll have to go and take a look before jumping to conclusions.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2011
With life already having been discovered kilometers below the Earth's surface there could be even places near the galactic center that are shielded enough.

I agree with your points, however, not entirely with the above quote.

We may find micro-organisms km underground TODAY, but that doesn't mean that that life originated there. It was almost certainly an adaptation by precursor organisms that once lived near or on the surface.

If a galactic center planet's surface environment has always been too hostile for life (as we understand it), then it's doubtful that there will be any kms down.

Of course, the usual caveat about the biology and chemistry of life as we understand it applies, but that's all we can talk about with any kind of authority.
dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2011
Ethelred,
Dogbert is the person that gave every post that laughed at Kevin's idiotic post a one.


I've asked you this before and I'll ask it again. How do you know who votes and how do you know how anyone votes? Will you ignore the question?

He is a Creationist but refuses to admit it.

I do believe that God created the universe. I have am not afraid to admit that and freely admit it. I have never refused to admit that I believe in Creation.

Does it make you feel superior to make up lies?

I think he has a problem with life on other planets that is based on his religious beliefs. Sure isn't based on evidence since there just isn't any evidence against life existing elsewhere. There is evidence that life could exist elsewhere so there really isn't reason to think it can't.


I have no problem at all with life existing elsewhere -- even intelligent life. I merely pointed out that we have zero evidence of life anywhere but here.

-- continued ...
dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2011
-- continued

And why do you "think I have a problem with life on other planets" based on my religious belief? Why do you suppose that would have any effect on my assessment of the probabilities of life elsewhere?

Does your religion effect your ability to reason?
Deesky
5 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2011
I have no problem at all with life existing elsewhere -- even intelligent life. I merely pointed out that we have zero evidence of life anywhere but here.

No, you did more than that. You said:
The fact that we have found no indication of life anywhere but on earth does inform us that the probabilities for life may be considerably less than we may have hoped.

Firstly, your premise is wrong, as we have no real capacity to test for extraterrestrial life, so the fact that we have 'found' nothing cannot 'inform' us of anything much.

Furthermore, your implication was that life is much scarcer than many believe which feeds into the theist doctrine of life on earth being unique and made by god for us to exploit.

If your dogma deviates from that line and in lieu of clarification, then others can be forgiven for assuming the standard religious view when you make vague and suggestive comments.
Pyle
3 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2011
Anybody read Benford's "The Sunborn"?

The possibilities for life are truly vast. We're pretty sure there aren't surface dwelling creatures larger than say a mouse on any bodies in the solar system besides Earth, but beyond that I don't think we can say much.

Water based? Sure it works for us but who knows what else lies out there?

I've asked you this before and I'll ask it again. How do you know who votes and how do you know how anyone votes?

Figure it out doggie. It ain't hard. And Eth is probably guessing a bit, but he's no doubt right.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2011
"... most scientists agree that living cells did not abruptly appear from nonliving cells in a single step." - Article

Most? Ahahahahahahahahaahah...
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2011
"the probabilities for life may be considerably less than we may have hoped." - Dogbert

I certainly hope that most planets and space environments are sterile. If not then this dramatically increases the chance of earth coming down with a bad case of planet wide extinction due to extra-terrestrial biological contamination.

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2011
We may find micro-organisms km underground TODAY, but that doesn't mean that that life originated there. It was almost certainly an adaptation by precursor organisms that once lived near or on the surface.

I recently came accross an article that argued the other way arround: That life originated deep underground and then moved upwards. I don't know which way life took, but I can see merit in both explanations.

It really doesn't matter which way it moved: The qestion is CAN life originate underground AT ALL? If so then a shielded environment may be enough to support life near the galactic core. And I really don't see any reason that would forbid life to start off way down in the crust. If it can exist there it could conceivably originate there.
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2011
Desky,

Firstly, your premise is wrong, as we have no real capacity to test for extraterrestrial life, so the fact that we have 'found' nothing cannot 'inform' us of anything much.


We do test it. We tested for life on the moon, Mars and on meteorites. We look for signs of life on the planets of the solar system and we do spectral analysis of planets orbiting other stars. To date, we have zero evidence of life elsewhere in the universe.

Furthermore, your implication was that life is much scarcer than many believe which feeds into the theist doctrine of life on earth being unique and made by god for us to exploit.


May be your doctrine, not mine. Why do you accuse me of your prejudices?

-- continued ...
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2011
continued ...

If your dogma deviates from that line and in lieu of clarification, then others can be forgiven for assuming the standard religious view when you make vague and suggestive comments.


Again, why do you accuse me of your shortcomings? Don't project your dogma onto me.

Why do you believe that there is a "standard religious view" about extraterrestrial life? How does your religion inform you on these matters?
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2011
If not then this dramatically increases the chance of earth coming down with a bad case of planet wide extinction due to extra-terrestrial biological contamination.

Why?
1) Extraterrestrial life will be adapted to its specific extraterrestrial environment. Our kind of life is best adapted to ours. The alien bugs won't stand a chance.
2) It's very unlikely - if the two types of life originated separately - that they are compatible in any way.

Anyhow: It hasn't happened in the past 3 billion years. No reason to suspect that the risk is high.
Deesky
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2011
We tested for life on the moon, Mars and on meteorites. We look for signs of life on the planets of the solar system and we do spectral analysis of planets orbiting other stars.

Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things, as I pointed out. Especially when you refer to the totality of everything, ie the universe.

May be your doctrine, not mine.

I don't have a doctrine.

Why do you accuse me of your prejudices?

That doesn't make sense.

Again, why do you accuse me of your shortcomings? Don't project your dogma onto me.

It still doesn't make sense.

Why do you believe that there is a "standard religious view" about extraterrestrial life?

You're trying too hard. I never actually said that.

How does your religion inform you on these matters?

It doesn't. I don't believe in sky fairies.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2011
Why do you believe that there is a "standard religious view" about extraterrestrial life?


You're trying too hard. I never actually said that.


Yes you did. The words "standard religious view" were directly quoted from your statement.

How does your religion inform you on these matters?


It doesn't. I don't believe in sky fairies.


Then perhaps you should try to converse without constant referral to dogma which you subsequently feel compelled to deny.
Deesky
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2011
Yes you did. The words "standard religious view" were directly quoted from your statement.

And which is out of context. Anyone that has been around here for long enough knows that the predominant religious view amongst the regulars here is tied in with YEC, IDers and christians of various sects. They share the same or similar views WRT to origin of life, the creation myth, etc. That is why I used the phrase, but you miss the broader point I was actually making.

I was actually giving you a half 'out' by acknowledging that your beliefs differed (going by your later post) from those that can be lumped together with what passes as the "standard view" around here. But until you made that clarification, the standard assumption was reasonable.

cont.
Deesky
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2011
Then perhaps you should try to converse without constant referral to dogma which you subsequently feel compelled to deny.

Sorry, but as someone who still believes in something for which there is no evidence, god, you're still vulnerable to that accusation.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2011
Sorry, but as someone who still believes in something for which there is no evidence, god, you're still vulnerable to that accusation.


There is far more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the existence of extraterrestrial life.

Why do you suppose you feel compelled to fault me when I note that there is zero evidence of extraterrestrial life but at the same time you are compelled to fault me for basing my model of reality on the evidence for God?

For the record, I hope there is life elsewhere in the universe -- lots of it. The universe will be a more interesting place if life is common. But my desire/hope does not change the fact that there is no evidence for that scenario.

Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2011
How do you know who votes and how do you know how anyone votes? Will you ignore the question?
I didn't ignore it the last time. You try to hide your agenda on this site so I feel no obligation at all to tell you things that nearly every competent person figured out soon after arriving. I an NOT helping someone as disingenuous as you are. I really didn't think were that incompetent that you could not figure it out after it was pointed out that it can be done.

I have never refused to admit that I believe in Creation
Which is yet another attempt to avoid saying you are a Creationist. ALL Christians believe in a creation. Deists believe in a creation.

Does it make you feel superior to make up lies?
I don't do that so I have to ask YOU if it felt good to lie about me. On a recent thread you went way out of your way to evade Frank's questions while pretending you were answering them. You then claimed you had answered and left without ever answering the original question.>
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2011
I have no problem at all with life existing elsewhere -- even intelligent life.
Wow a straight answer. Baby steps like that could lead to full disclosure.

I merely pointed out that we have zero evidence of life anywhere but here.
While true that isn't all we can know about the odds of life elsewhere. It does make any speculation inherently tentative.

And why do you "think I have a problem with life on other planets" based on my religious belief?
Lots of Creationists do. Since you have consistently evaded making your position clear on many things I make guesses based on your know behavior and that of people that have similar behaviors. Then, like anyone with science based thinking, I test those guesses.

Does your religion effect your ability to reason?
Yes. I don't have a religion so my reason is free of faith based evasions of reality.>>
Ethelred
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2011
Faith in disproved religious ideas about reality effects any believers ability to reason until they give up the blocks they have against using reason with their own beliefs. Look at Kevin. He is completely unable to engage in reasoned debate or thought except in almost all cases. And YOU gave all those ones to people that raked him over the coals for it. That was UNREASONABLE and thus showed you DO let your religion effect your ability to reason.

And Eth is probably guessing a bit, but he's no doubt right.
Just using reason. There was only one person in many of the cases that would have downranked the posts. I compared the people ranking with past behavior. That left one or at most two possible people and only Dogbert was involved in all the cases. The most likely person besides Dogbert and other Creationists to downrank any of the posts in question is ME. I think Kevin has the right to be a complete ass and have downranked people for trying to censor Creationists.

Ethelred
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2011
And why do you "think I have a problem with life on other planets" based on my religious belief?


Lots of Creationists do.


That is the kind of crap which causes endless religion argument on this site.

1) You seem to have a private misunderstanding of what a "Creationist" is since you don't seem to believe it is someone who believes in creation.

2) You pretend that someone who believes in creation must necessarily believe some nonsense you choose to attribute to non-atheists as a group.

3) You make such statements as the above "Lots of Creationist do [have a problem with the concept of life elsewhere in the universe]. You have absolutely nothing to base that statement on but your own prejudice. Please define "Lots of" and provide supporting documentation.
Deesky
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2011
There is far more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the existence of extraterrestrial life.

I'd say the evidence for both is - zero. However, by applying scientific knowledge and principles, one can make reasonable guesses that life elsewhere, given the right conditions, is very likely.

Since you're claiming that you have 'evidence' for the existence of god, why don't you present it to all of us? Go on, I dare you.

Why do you suppose you feel compelled to fault me when I note that there is zero evidence of extraterrestrial life but at the same time you are compelled to fault me for basing my model of reality on the evidence for God?

Here's a clue - there is NO evidence for god!
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2011
Deesky,

I understand that you have your own religious agenda, I was merely pointing out your inconsistency.

You find the existence of life elsewhere "very likely" with zero evidence, but you find the existence of God foolish with what you claim is the same "zero evidence".

Dogma has a tendency to create such inconsistencies. Perhaps you should try to free yourself of it so that you can avoid such logical failings.
antialias
4 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2011
Does it make you feel superior to make up lies?

This from someone who claims that there is a god?
Oh the irony...
Deesky
5 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2011
dogbert, you're a coward. You don't have the guts to back up your assertions and instead try squirm your way out by deflection and making ludicrous claims about me.

So why don't you finish what you started - answer the question I asked you. You made the claim about 'evidence', now either back it up or shutup.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2011
That is the kind of crap which causes endless religion argument on this site.
Sorry that the truth bothers you.

1) You seem to have a private misunderstanding of what a "Creationist" is since you don't seem to believe it is someone who believes in creation.
No. Creationists mostly come in two major kinds. YECs and OECs. The OEC occasionally accept the evolution occurs but they almost always insist on ID and deny Natural Selection. You seem to be one of those only you evade any attempt to find out what you really think.

If your definition was the correct one the Pope John-Paul II would have been a Creationist which he was not.>>
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2011
Deesky,

You have at your disposal all the evidence which is available to every other human being on the planet. I have no desire to preach to you or anyone else on a scientific forum.

Religious discussion is generally off topic on this site except when religion is a concern in the posted article. Why do you continually want to proselytize?

Why don't you tell us why one possibility with no evidence is more likely than another possibility with no evidence?
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2011
Ethelred,
If your definition was the correct one the Pope John-Paul II would have been a Creationist which he was not.


I did not realize you were Catholic.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2011
2) You pretend that someone who believes in creation must necessarily believe some nonsense you choose to attribute to non-atheists as a group.
You like to muddy things up. I pretend nothing but I understand that you expect everyone to act as you do. For one I am a non-atheist. For another you simply are without a clue as to what a Creationist is, assuming you actually believed what you said. This is just another attempt by you to evade stating what you actually believe by playing games with definitions to try and make people that don't agree with you into Creationists.

3) You make such statements as the above "Lots of Creationist do [have a problem with the concept of life elsewhere in the universe].
Yes I did. They do. Right here on this site and pretty much everywhere they write.

You have absolutely nothing to base that statement on but your own prejudice.
Lie. I have all those posts and sites by actual YECs.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2011
Please define "Lots of" and provide supporting documentation.
Please stop evading questions before you make demands. I can't help it if you haven't read any of Kevin's posts on this matter and he certainly isn't the only one. Indeed you may be the only one claiming to be a Creationist that MAY think there might be life elsewhere.

http://creation.c...-planets

http://www.christ...012.html

http://www.icr.or...planets/

Now quit pretending that I made it up. I do wonder just who you think are fooling.

I did not realize you were Catholic.
I did not realize you think I have to be one to know that Pope John-Paul II wasn't a Creationist. I am Agnostic and have said so many times. Unlike you I don't try to obfuscate on what I think.

Ethelred
Deesky
5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2011
You have at your disposal all the evidence which is available to every other human being on the planet

What evidence? Say what it is. Something. Anything at all. Stop evading.

I have no desire to preach to you or anyone else on a scientific forum.

Then don't use religious words like 'preach'. Slip of the tongue? If you have no desire to support overt claims that you yourself have made, then WHAT are you doing on a scientific forum?

Why do you continually want to proselytize?

Again with the religious lingo! You just can't help yourself, can you?

Why don't you tell us why one possibility with no evidence is more likely than another possibility with no evidence?

Not that I need to answer your questions since you keep evading mine (arising from your own claims), but I have in fact already given you the reason for that. Go ahead, re-read what I said. Pathetic!
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
Ethelred,

You have mentioned it so many times, I just have to ask you, why do you say that Pope John Paul II did not believe in creation? Mind you, I care not at all for any Pope's opinions, but you seem to, so I would like to know how you determined that he did not believe in creation.

And yes, I know he supported the concept of evolution.

Why do you claim he did not believe in creation?
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
You have mentioned it so many times,
Can't you ever stick to the truth. I said something different from that TWICE and the second was to correct your first silly reply. This time you rewrote what I said.

I said CREATIONIST not belief in creation. Those are two different things and you know it. Or you're brain damaged.

but you seem to
It was an example and I am pretty sure this is just another of your attempts to deflect instead of answer. You can't be this stupid and still manage to post.

so I would like to know how you determined that he did not believe in creation.
I want to know why you keep evading questions while lying about what I actually said. And for what I actually said that is true. John Paul II AKA Hard Ass said that science and religion don't conflict. He also made it clear that the Church accepts evolution. Creationists do not accept evolution and you can quit pretending that a belief in creation and Creationism are the same thing.>>
antialias
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2011
It seems that evasion is the new general tactic. Theists have so many (all?) areas where they fail to have a supportable stance that instead of going down when pressed on one they just jump to another and wait until they are pressed there.

So instead of trying to come up with answers at all they just play at leading a wild goose chase. It's sad to watch.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2011
And yes, I know he supported the concept of evolution.
Then why did you ask?

So since that was clearly just evasion try telling us just this once what your actual beliefs are. And you can quit lying about that being against the rules since you preach here pretty often.

Why do you claim he did not believe in creation?
Why are you lying that I said that?

My guess that you told that blatant lie to hide the fact that you are not replying to the evidence that Creationists think there can't be life on other planets. Which is pretty typical of you.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2011
As I noted before, you seem to have a private misunderstanding of the meaning of the word creationist. It would be useful if you would provide your definition of the word.

I'll provide the meaning of the word. A creationist is someone who believes in creation.
FrankHerbert
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
A creationist is someone who believes in creation.


You're such a disingenuous prick dogbert.

It seems that evasion is the new general tactic. Theists have so many (all?) areas where they fail to have a supportable stance that instead of going down when pressed on one they just jump to another and wait until they are pressed there.

So instead of trying to come up with answers at all they just play at leading a wild goose chase. It's sad to watch.


A good name for this phenomenon is "baffle with bullshit."
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
FrankHerbert,

People who do not want to clearly define what they are saying generally are trying to bullshit. Since you object to defining words, you seem to have described yourself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
Haha this is very funny, but informative:
I've asked you this before and I'll ask it again. How do you know who votes and how do you know how anyone votes?
So dogbert understands that there is a way to do this, but instead of looking around and finding out for himself, which is a VERY easy thing to do, he expects someone to TELL him how to do it.

Does this not speak to the very core of the religionist mindset? Instead of doing what little work is needed to find something out they expect a higher power to come along and offer them explanations simple enough for them to understand. Unbelievable.

This tells me that 1) At least some Religionists are just lazy (and dim) and 2) They have the audacity to expect others to give them the info they want just because they ask.

Does this describe YOU dogbert?

You Religionists sit on your asses and expect others to tell you how to live pleasant lives and fix your problems. Praying (wishing) is so much easier than thinking isn't it?
FrankHerbert
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
Dogbert, you aren't "defining words," you are playing semantics. I know because you disagree with us politically you deny us our humanity, so you don't think morality applies when dealing with us, but go ahead and give it a try. You might be surprised.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2011
In other words, science is about having the patience and doing the work necessary to find out how things work. This can result in complexity beyond what most of us can comprehend. I am ok with that.

Religion is about feeling good by pretending the world is simple and pleasant enough if one just wishes it to be so with enough earnestness. Because someone else says this is possible, and so it must be.

This is why science and religion are diametrically opposed, and will always remain a primary threat to one another. And THIS is the reason why religion is such a danger to humanity, and why it must END.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2011
As I noted before, you seem to have a private misunderstanding of the meaning of the word creationist.
No. You are deliberatly using your own private definition. All those sites I linked to, the ones that you ignored about life on other planets, were CREATIONIST sites. All of them agree with me on the definition. So quit lying that I am using a personal definition. And that was yet another attempt to evade the question istead of being honest.

I'll provide the meaning of the word. A creationist is someone who believes in creation.
That is yours and not the standard meaning. You are using to evade.

People who do not want to clearly define what they are saying generally are trying to bullshit.
Yes. That is why you are lying about the standard meaning of the word. You want to evade the debate and continue to be dishonest. A clear member of Liars For JesusTM.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2011
http://www.thefre...ationist
cre·a·tion·ism (kr-sh-nzm)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

http://www.yourdi...ationist
crea·tion·ism (-iz'?m)

noun

the doctrine that God creates a new soul for every human being born
the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to an act of creation by God, specif. to God's creation of the world as described in the Bible

http://dictionary...ationism
cre·a·tion·ism
[kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.>>
dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2011
Ethelred,

I'll provide the meaning of the word. A creationist is someone who believes in creation.


That is yours and not the standard meaning. You are using to evade.


No, that is the definition you will find in the dictionary:

Mirriam-Webster

creationism:
a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

Though you refuse to state your personal redefinition of the word, you appear to use the word as it would apply to the small fringe group who believe in a young earth. But you seem to apply your redefined word to Christians in general, not distinguishing between the mainstream and a fringe group. This is a dishonest abuse of the language.

Why do you consistently refuse to say what you mean when you say "creationist" or "creationism"?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2011
http://www.merria...ationism
Definition of CREATIONISM
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis compare evolution 4b

Of course that was a waste of time as Dogbert while treat this exactly he did the links on Creationist beliefs about life on other planets and previous thread where he refused to say if he accepts the reality of speciation by evolution.

And still refuses to be specific on any belief of his. Of course it pretty obvious that the operative belief he is going on HERE is that he is actually fooling people.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2011
Ethelred,

I told you what I mean by the word. I told you I believe in creation. I even gave you a definition.

You are the one who refuses to speak clearly and be specific. I continue to ask you to define what you mean to show how you obfuscate.
Pyle
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
doggie, Now that the semantics are officially out of the way, you said:
There is far more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the existence of extraterrestrial life.

We're waiting...
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2011
No, that is the definition you will find in the dictionary:
It is the standard way the word is used. I and most others also tend to use it as a shortcut for YOUNG Earth Creationist.

Now that was one of the most blatant evasions yet. I give you the standard and then you change your demand. My own definition is the standard definition. I use words to communicate so I need to use the standards.

Now if I was to obfuscate reality then I would do as you do. Use your own private definition and pretend that everyone else must as well AND of course evade actually giving the bullshit definition for as long as possible.

Why do you consistently refuse to say what you mean when you say "creationist" or "creationism"?
Why do you consistently lie like that? I never refused. I gave the definition I use long ago on this thread and then you claimed your bullshit definition was the right one.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2011
My previous statement that you are claiming doesn't exist:
No. Creationists mostly come in two major kinds. YECs and OECs. The OEC occasionally accept the evolution occurs but they almost always insist on ID and deny Natural Selection.


So then now that we have that extended set of lies and evasions out of the way its time to go back to the previous extended evasion.

Creationists, specifically YECs and most OECs don't think there is life on other planets. Please either admit to this bit of reality or give evidence for the Bible supporting life on other planets.

Or you could just quit evading the long term questions and start giving a few specifics of your beliefs, without using the usual private double secret utterly exclusive to you definitions you are found of.

Fat chance of that.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2011
No, that is the definition you will find in the dictionary:


It is the standard way the word is used. I and most others also tend to use it as a shortcut for YOUNG Earth Creationist.


Thank you for admitting that you define people who believe in creation as young earth creationists.

Now that the nature of your obfuscation is admitted, we can discount anything you say when you use the word "creation" or "creationist".
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2011
Thank you for admitting that you define people who believe in creation as young earth creationists.
Do you ever get tired of lying? I did no such thing.

So lying is the best you can of to evade relevant questions? Is that it? You are that incompetent?

Now that the nature of your obfuscation is admitted,
Now that the nature your continuing obfuscation is clear are you ever quit lying about me and other?

we can discount anything you say when you use the word "creation" or "creationist".
You lie about already and 'we' clearly is another of those double secret definitions of yours which, from context, means YOU and YOU alone.

I repeat. The standard use of the word Creationist is to refer to people that believe in creation EXACTLY as described in Genesis. Usually Genesis one as they hope no one notices that Genesis two contradicts it. Most Creationists are YECs. SOME, very few, are OECs. Lying isn't to change that.>>
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
Can't let you think you managed a successful evasion.

you could just quit evading the long term questions and start giving a few specifics of your beliefs, without using the usual private double secret utterly exclusive to you definitions you are found of.
No I won't forget that you evading by lying.

Ethelred
Deesky
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
dogbert: People who do not want to clearly define what they are saying generally are trying to bullshit.

I love it when people incriminate themselves.

Here's an idea. Let's play Absolute Truth. The rules are simple. You get to ask me any question at all and I have to answer honestly and truthfully, without word games or obfuscation. Then I ask you a question and you answer likewise.

Are you prepared to be honest and play? In good faith, I will let you go first and ask me any question.
dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2011
Deesky,

I'm always truthful and plainly state my position. No need for games.
Deesky
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2011
Deesky,
I'm always truthful and plainly state my position. No need for games.

Yet another deflection. Translation: I don't want to answer your questions truthfully because it would expose my unsupportable belief system and make me look even more foolish on a science site.
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2011
I'm always truthful and plainly state my position. No need for games.
It isn't a surprise that you would lie about your level honesty. You lied about what I said to distort the meaning. And you have NEVER stated your position without at least a long series of evasions. Just like in this discussion.

And to remind you what it is you are evading at the moment:
you could just quit evading the long term questions and start giving a few specifics of your beliefs, without using the usual private double secret utterly exclusive to you definitions you are found of.


Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
Ethelred,
It isn't a surprise that you would lie about your level honesty. You lied about what I said to distort the meaning. And you have NEVER stated your position without at least a long series of evasions. Just like in this discussion.


I have neither lied nor avoided stating my position. Each time you said I was avoiding stating my position, I again stated that I believe in creation.

You, however, continually obfuscate and distort. How many times in this thread did I have to ask you what you meant by "creationism" before you finally admitted that you used the term when you meant "Young Earth" creationism, thus implying that main stream Christians are "Young Earth" creationists.

You obfuscate and distort to deprecate those who believe in God, particularly Christians. Instead of honestly stating your hatred for God, you prefer instead to attack anyone who believes in him while claiming that you are just an Agnostic.

continued..
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
continued ...

This whole discussion started when I made the simple statement that we had no evidence for the existence of life anywhere except on earth. A simple and scientific observation.

You then felt compelled to attack me on a religious basis because you are driven to attack anyone who professes to believe in God. Nothing in my statement should have triggered you to begin your anti-God rant. But you are primed to always move the discussion to religion so that you can continue to proselytize.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
I have neither lied nor avoided stating my position. Each time you said I was avoiding stating my position, I again stated that I believe in creation.
You lied by rewriting my statements to mean something else. You evaded my question each time. I am fully aware that you believe in creation. I did point out that ALL Christians believe in creation. I NEVER asked if you believed that and it is completely bogus to pretend that I did ask that.

You, however, continually obfuscate and distort.
Still lying about me.

How many times in this thread did I have to ask you what you meant by "creationism"
You asked AFTER I made it clear.

you used the term when you meant "Young Earth" creationism,
I didn't do that. I said that it is USUALLY used as a short cut term for YECs. By the YECs themselves for that matter.

thus implying that main stream Christians are "Young Earth" creationists.
You made that up. I never said or implied it.>>
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
Indeed I clearly said Pope John-Paul II was NOT a Creationist. However 25 per cent of Americans ARE YECs and 55 per cent actually believe in the Great Flood. If that isn't main stream what is?

You obfuscate and distort to deprecate those who believe in God,
Lie. I do call lies out when I see them. If you stopped doing that I would not have to point it out. I don't obfuscate or distort. I certainly treat idiotic remarks like Kevin an Johannes make as idiotic. The world is not 6000 years old and I will continue to tell the truth about that.

Instead of honestly stating your hatred for God,
Lie. I have said this many times and I know you have seen it yet you continue to lie about my position on this.

I CANNOT hate something that does not exist. I don't Jehovah is a psychopath since there is no Jehovah. However I cannot help it if the BIBLE has a nonexistent god acting exactly like a psychopath. There is no hate involved no matter how many times you lie about it.>>
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2011
I am simply pointing what that sort of behavior would be if it was real.

The Bible accuses Jehovah of killing all life on Earth that breaths air, not me. I know it didn't happen so there really isn't anything real to be upset over. Which is why I am not upset.

you prefer instead to attack anyone who believes in him while claiming that you are just an Agnostic.
Lie. I try to point out utter ignorance when it is spread across the site. I am an Agnostic. There might be a god. Just not the one in Genesis since we do not live in the world that is described there.

This whole discussion started when I made the simple statement that we had no evidence for the existence of life anywhere except on earth.
And I never disagreed with that statement. Indeed I agreed with it. Explicitly.

You then felt compelled to attack me on a religious basis
False. I attacked your evasions of reasonable questions.>>
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
you are driven to attack anyone who professes to believe in God
Lie. I attack ignorance.

begin your anti-God rant.
I never made an anti-god rant. I don't attack things that don't exist. I suppose you might consider that an attack but that is delusional since there is nothing to attack.

primed to always move the discussion to religion
Lie. I never start the religion stuff. I only join in. You were evading reasonable questions and I pointed that out. If you call a request for actual answers an attack that is VERY strange of you. It isn't my fault that YOU see everything in religious terms.

so that you can continue to proselytize.
I don't proselytize. I point out errors in those that come here to push their religion. Which includes you. The favorite way to push Creationism these days is to attack science since Creationism is a denial of reality. >>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
Believe it or not many Christians do not believe the Bible is literally true. You seem to be laboring under the impression that disagreeing with you is an attack on 2 billion Christians even though 50 percent of them are Catholics and are not required by dogma to pretend the world is young.

Oh yes. That was an attack on me AND you still evaded the question.

you could just quit evading the long term questions and start giving a few specifics of your beliefs, without using the usual private double secret utterly exclusive to you definitions you are found of.


Why do you pretend that a request for information is an attack?

Ethelred
Pyle
3 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2011
1, 2, 3, Repeater!

doggie, Now that the semantics -AND INSULTS- are officially out of the way, you said:
There is far more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the existence of extraterrestrial life.


Still waiting...
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
Pyle,

You are not waiting nor are you interested.

By your continual request, one might be led to believe that you are unaware of the Jewish people and thousands of years of documentation about the God od Abraham. I am not amused. I know you are familiar with these things and have rejecyed
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
Pyle cont. ...

(My phone is messing up. Difficult to post)
You are aware of the same evidence I have but you have rejected it. It is still evidence and it far exceeds the zero evidence we have for extraterrestrial life.
Javinator
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2011
I would argue that conspiracy theories, blurry pictures and witness accounts provide as much evidence for extra-terrestrials as what you're claiming is evidence for the God of Abraham.

The wording of claims in the Bible could also be taken as ET sightings (bright star in the sky, etc.)

To be clear I'm not debating the existence (or lack thereof) of aliens or God, but I'm questioning the validity of what is being considered "evidence".
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
Javinator,

My comment was only that the was more evidence for God than for extraterrestrial life. I don't care to argue about the validity of evidence on a.scientific site, only that there is evidence versus zero evidence for life other than on the earth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2011
And still refuses to be specific on any belief of his. Of course it pretty obvious that the operative belief he is going on HERE is that he is actually fooling people.
Religionists are always best at deceiving themselves.
My comment was only that the was more evidence for God than for extraterrestrial life
There is at least one for ET - methane in the martian atmosphere. That is one more than there is for god. Probability also overwhelmingly favors ET over space fairies. Scientific analysis of the books which describe them conclude that they are fiction. Further strong anti-evidence.

What say you besides arf arf arf?
Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf_Arf
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2011
Yes, please elucidate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
you are unaware of the Jewish people and thousands of years of documentation about the God od Abraham.
No wait - is this the 'it must be true because so many people believed it for so long' argument?? I never thought I would see this here.

Dognuts, consider for a moment that people believed in the greco-roman pantheon far longer than the hebrew god. Consider that the oracles held sway in that world far longer than the popes have in this one. Consider the distinct possibility that one is an unbroken continuum of the Authority and Command of that previous sociopolitical Institution. Naw on 2nd thought dont worry yor pretty lil head over that one.

The last time I saw this argument it was from a moslem on youtube vilifying so many million shiites because so many million sunnis believed their own version of islam for so many hundreds of years. 'Could ALL those believers have been wrong??' -He blinked at the camera in wide-eyed amazement.

You bet. Dead wrong. Dognuts.
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
Your god is in 1 or 2 books(depending on how you count) and ETs are in COUNTLESS books. Prove that Andromeda Strain is not a factual accounting of actual events (remember there is a lot of parable in Andromeda Strain).

I don't care to argue about the validity of evidence on a.scientific site,


L O L
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2011
Couldnt find that video but this is just as disturbing:
http://www.youtub...3vhTO248

To which I can only answer:
http://www.youtub...uSiC4wNw

-Remember Leiby Kletzky-
Javinator
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
Javinator,

My comment was only that the was more evidence for God than for extraterrestrial life. I don't care to argue about the validity of evidence on a.scientific site, only that there is evidence versus zero evidence for life other than on the earth.


So you don't care about the validity of what you're presenting?

How is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously when you admit that you think validity of evidence isn't worth arguing for in a debate?

It shows that you don't care if what you're saying is true and really gets to the core of the whole discussion in this comment section.
Pyle
4 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2011
doggie:
You are not waiting nor are you interested.
Actually I am very interested. If you are actually able to provide a piece of real evidence I'll gladly worship your sky fairy in order to save my immortal soul. (Real evidence would not involve leaps of faith or trusting moldy recycled fairy tales. Something, you know, scientific.)

But, I am pretty confident that you can't provide any evidence, so, you're right, I'm not holding my breath.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2011
WATCH this guy. Fomerly hasidic, now wahhabi. THIS is religion. Its existence in any form should SCARE you.
http://www.youtub...=related

See what he says at the end; by propagation and by the gun, islam will take over the world.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.