Extraterrestrial (microbial) life found in meteorite

page: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


So what do you mean by gaps?

In the fossil record.


...or do you just mean we dont know where life started?

That too.

I am not satisfied with the "Theory of Evolution" because it requires me to suspend disbelief.

I am also not satisfied with the story portrayed in the Bible for the same reason.

Homie don't play that anymore.

I may have an opinion on it... but I don't really know...




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 

You still haven't explained why you think that life could have started on other planets, but you don't think life could have started on Earth.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 




And the hard evidence for life originating here has "gaps" so we cannot conclude that life originated here.





So what do you mean by gaps?

In the fossil record.


Like i said there may be 'gaps' in the fossil record but our DNA proves we evolved from lower life forms that existed before the 'gaps' that you talk about.

edit on 15-1-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


But it still doesn't prove that it started on Earth. The biggest gap is still the one that goes from chemicals to living things.

Totally agree. I think some are getting the wrong impression from what I say. Either they are confused or think I am stating my opinion on this off topic branch as "fact".
edit on 15-1-2013 by intrptr because: clarity



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by intrptr
 

You still haven't explained why you think that life could have started on other planets, but you don't think life could have started on Earth.

Nice try. I have no idea how life started anywhere. Either do you.
edit on 15-1-2013 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by intrptr
 

You still haven't explained why you think that life could have started on other planets, but you don't think life could have started on Earth.

Nice try. I have no idea how life started anywhere. Either do you.
edit on 15-1-2013 by intrptr because: (no reason given)

Right. We don't.
That's why I find it odd that you discount the possibility of life starting from a bunch of amino acids recating together, whether that reaction is here on Earth or elsewhere.

Life does exist, so it started somehow. Maybe life on Earth was seeded from someplace else, but where did THAT other life come from? You can say "somewhere else" yet again, but eventually, life would have needed to FIRST start somewhere -- and it could have started spontaneously (unless you subscribe to the idea of a biblical-style God who just wills life into being).

So here's my question:
Do you agree that the original life that "begat" the life that you say was on a meteor that may have eventually seeded Earth...did THAT original spontaneously formed on a planet somewhere?

I admit I have no idea how life started, but the knowledge of how life first got started is not necessary in answering my question.

edit on 1/15/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


You can say "somewhere else" yet again, but eventually, life would have needed to FIRST start somewhere

If you ask me how it started, I don't know.
If you ask me how it got here, I say from somewhere else. I really don't know. It is what I lean to, given the two choices.

That_is _just_an_opinion.

Are we done with this yet?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
I had to reply twice just to clarify something.


Do you agree that the original life that "begat" the life that you say was on a meteor...


Whoops. I already stated somewhere here that I don't believe in "meteor sperm".



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I agree that it is possible for meteors to seed planets (such as Earth) with life. I don't discount that possibility, because I don't know how life on Earth started.

However, if can be found in meteors that came from elsewhere, then that life had to have started somewhere at least once before. And the fact that life could have actually started at least once before makes me think it could have also possibly started on Earth. Therefore (again, since I don't know how life started) I can't discount the possibility that life on earth STARTED on Earth.

I have no proof either way, so I can't say for sure either way.

Also, If someone believes that aliens are the ones who purposely seeded earth, then those aliens have to have originated somewhere. And, again, that tales us back to the idea that if life could have started on that alien world that eventually evolved into those aliens, the the same thing could happen on earth.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Who's to say that DNA originated on Earth? Our current limited knowledge can't rule out DNA having a universal presence. One thing that is safe to say at this time as a human being, is that DNA = Origins Unknown.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

Thanks for those replies. I came back to this one because I have posted a ton of replies in the last 48 hours and the hardest one I had to deal with are the ones you are gently presenting me with. It took a long time for this to settle in because I am stubborn and have predetermined ideas about certain things.


And the fact that life could have actually started at least once before makes me think it could have also possibly started on Earth.

You are absolutely right. Since the Universe is infinite, the possibilities are therefore infinite and it is therefore possible that life originated somewhere (and maybe here too) by unknown processes. However improbable I believe that to be, I have to give deference to the logic of your assertions.

I would have been remiss if I had not done so. Whew. There, I did it.

Hats off to you...



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The fact that Phil Plait has seen fit to dismiss Dr. Wickramasinghe's paper scarcely settles the matter, any more than the original paper did. A great deal of independent study will be needed before the significance of this discovery can be decided.
Plait decides, apparently without consulting an expert on meteorites, that this is not a carbonaceous chondrite, but a common Earthly rock. It does not look like a typical meteorite of this type. I was, however, able to find, in the Google images files after a few minutes search, using the terms: 'carbonaceous chondrite', an image that bore a marked resemblance to the Sri Lankan object. Dr. Plait seems in an undue haste to dismiss this discovery. Perhaps that should not be surprising. A good deal of his blog at Slate amounts to a scientifically valueless ad hominem argument.
He did at least consult one biologist. He thought that the diatoms were much too like those found on Earth to be from anywhere else. He did not identify any species, though. One would have thought this easy enough if these organisms are actually from Earth. It would also have strengthened his contention, to do so.
In any case, the biologist ignored the finding, mentioned in the original paper, that the diatoms were mineralized very similarly to the meteorite itself. Hardly what one would expect of invasive organisms from Earth, over a period of, at most, a few weeks.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Ross 54 because: added specificity
edit on 16-1-2013 by Ross 54 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2013 by Ross 54 because: added correct spacing, improved paragraph structure



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Hello my peeps. I was just wanted to give an update on the supposed ET fossil diatom found in the meteorite. Here's the link: www.slate.com...

I don't know if what they're saying here is true. Can anyone confirm the authenticity of the website? Is it in good standing and reputable? Thanks


I want it to be real, but I'm starting to have the feeling it's not. The article says it's a diatom, but it's not ET.
edit on 17-1-2013 by blahxd67 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-1-2013 by blahxd67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by blahxd67
Hello my peeps. I was just wanted to give an update on the supposed ET fossil diatom found in the meteorite. Here's the link: www.slate.com...

I don't know if what they're saying here is true. Can anyone confirm the authenticity of the website? Is it in good standing and reputable? Thanks


I want it to be real, but I'm starting to have the feeling it's not. The article says it's a diatom, but it's not ET.
edit on 17-1-2013 by blahxd67 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-1-2013 by blahxd67 because: (no reason given)
Yes, blahxd67, the real and reputable Dr. Phil Plait did write a blog on this, at the real, reputable, and well known website Slate. I consider Dr. Plait's observations, and those of the biologist he consulted to be questionable. Please see my post, directly above your own, for my detailed response.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Ross 54 because: added comma



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

Thanks for those replies. I came back to this one because I have posted a ton of replies in the last 48 hours and the hardest one I had to deal with are the ones you are gently presenting me with. It took a long time for this to settle in because I am stubborn and have predetermined ideas about certain things.


And the fact that life could have actually started at least once before makes me think it could have also possibly started on Earth.

You are absolutely right. Since the Universe is infinite, the possibilities are therefore infinite and it is therefore possible that life originated somewhere (and maybe here too) by unknown processes. However improbable I believe that to be, I have to give deference to the logic of your assertions.

I would have been remiss if I had not done so. Whew. There, I did it.

Hats off to you...



I don't consider the Universe to be infinite. But I do consider space to be infinite.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by blahxd67
 


I don't consider the Universe to be infinite. But I do consider space to be infinite.

Interesting distinction. Aren't they the same thing? Lets say for a minute what you propose is true.

How would you confine the "Known Universe"? By gravity, right? And that makes the Universe "bounded", right? And then beyond the "boundary" there is only empty space?

How do you know though that over infinity time that nothing has ever drifted away? That over infinity it would have to at some point have spread outside the boundary? Which means there is no boundary, that all of space is filled with all of the universe. Hard to say all, because if it goes on forever , it is full with more than all, it is infinitely all or some dumb way I'm saying it. What do you think?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by blahxd67
 


I don't consider the Universe to be infinite. But I do consider space to be infinite.

Space, as we commonly use the term, only exists in the Universe. It is not a sea of nothingness in which the Universe floats like a ping-pong ball. It is part – an essential aspect – of the Universe.

You can define a mathematical space in which some points indicate 'universes' in a 'multiverse' cosmology, but this so-called 'space' would be nothing like the spacetime continuum within which all things we know exist and probably arise. It would have other properties – properties unknown to us.

There is nothing 'outside' the Universe. This is true even in multiverse models of the cosmos. And by the way, the Universe is quite likely to be finite.

edit on 18/1/13 by Astyanax because: of an infinite variety of reasons, which age cannot wither, nor custom stale.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by blahxd67
 


I don't consider the Universe to be infinite. But I do consider space to be infinite.

Space, as we commonly use the term, only exists in the Universe. It is not a sea of nothingness in which the Universe floats like a ping-pong ball. It is part – an essential aspect – of the Universe.

You can define a mathematical space in which some points indicate 'universes' in a 'multiverse' cosmology, but this so-called 'space' would be nothing like the spacetime continuum within which all things we know exist and probably arise. It would have other properties – properties unknown to us.

There is nothing 'outside' the Universe. This is true even in multiverse models of the cosmos. And by the way, the Universe is quite likely to be finite.

edit on 18/1/13 by Astyanax because: of an infinite variety of reasons, which age cannot wither, nor custom stale.


I mean space as in space(like freely available area). Lets say there was only one Universe. Outside of that Universe, there would be nothing but well...nothingness. (although, the cosmic version of "nothing" is much different). Maybe I should've used a different word for it. But like I said, in the cosmic word, "nothing" isn't really nothing at all. Ugh. Paradox's. Lol.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by blahxd67
 


I mean space as in space (like freely available area).

Yes, I know that is what you mean. I used the word 'vacuum', meaning the same thing – volume, actually, not area, with absolutely nothing in it. Such a thing does not exist outside the Universe.


Lets say there was only one Universe. Outside of that Universe, there would be nothing but well... nothingness.

That's what I meant by 'a ping-pong ball surrounded by emptiness'. But that view is not correct.

If we regard the Universe as 'everything that exists' (I'll come back to multiverse models in a minute), the idea that there is anything (even space) outside it is wrong. The Universe is not expanding into nothingness, or into anything else; it is just expanding. The space that results from its expansion does not exist until the expansion creates it.

In multiverse models, a multiplicity of universes do not exist side by side in a physical spacetime. They exist in a mathematical space. Such a 'space' is purely abstract: it refers to the range of possible values that can be taken by a variable (or a function that depends on a set of variables). Mathematicians call this a configuration space.

The configuration space in a multiverse model is the range of all possible values of the key variables or functions that define a given universe. One such 'variable' is the gravitational constant, which specifies how strongly massive bodies in a universe are attracted to one another. Another is the speed of light, c. In a multiverse model, different universes exist in which these 'constants' have different values, and each different set of values creates a universe with different properties. These different universes don't exist side by side with each other in some kind of 3D space or 4D spacetime; the real situation is nothing like that at all. It is completely beyond human ability to visualise, or even to describe except in mathematical terms.

And as far as each universe is concerned, the others simply don't exist.

edit on 19/1/13 by Astyanax because: of variable constants.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by blahxd67
 


I mean space as in space (like freely available area).

Yes, I know that is what you mean. I used the word 'vacuum', meaning the same thing – volume, actually, not area, with absolutely nothing in it. Such a thing does not exist outside the Universe.


Lets say there was only one Universe. Outside of that Universe, there would be nothing but well... nothingness.

That's what I meant by 'a ping-pong ball surrounded by emptiness'. But that view is not correct.

If we regard the Universe as 'everything that exists' (I'll come back to multiverse models in a minute), the idea that there is anything (even space) outside it is wrong. The Universe is not expanding into nothingness, or into anything else; it is just expanding. The space that results from its expansion does not exist until the expansion creates it.

In multiverse models, a multiplicity of universes do not exist side by side in a physical spacetime. They exist in a mathematical space. Such a 'space' is purely abstract: it refers to the range of possible values that can be taken by a variable (or a function that depends on a set of variables). Mathematicians call this a configuration space.

The configuration space in a multiverse model is the range of all possible values of the key variables or functions that define a given universe. One such 'variable' is the gravitational constant, which specifies how strongly massive bodies in a universe are attracted to one another. Another is the speed of light, c. In a multiverse model, different universes exist in which these 'constants' have different values, and each different set of values creates a universe with different properties. These different universes don't exist side by side with each other in some kind of 3D space or 4D spacetime; the real situation is nothing like that at all. It is completely beyond human ability to visualise, or even to describe except in mathematical terms.

And as far as each universe is concerned, the others simply don't exist.

edit on 19/1/13 by Astyanax because: of variable constants.


Thank you for the clarification. So, lemme make sure I have this correct. You're saying, the Universe doesn't expand into anything?





top topics
 
35
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join