Hypocritical Response Squad?
Offline admin edit: the following post was used by a dishonest Christian blogger named Frank Walton, this is the ony post about Frank Walton you ever need to know.
________
When I found RRS, I was very excited to find other like-minded people to have rational conversations with. Where I live that is something very hard to come by. Even on the internet, it seems like everyone is still in the closet about their real beliefs.
I am always open to new ideas and consider any theory possible at first. If the person talking (or writer/blogger) has a better knowledge than me, I will listen to their story, ask probing questions, and learn everything they are willing to share. If I know more than the other person, I will hear them out and give the best response I can.
If I hear crazy conspiracy theories such as aliens are running our government, I will start by assessing the real possibility of it, taking all information into account, then estimate a likely percentage of truth. In this case I would say about 0.01%. Gov't hiding information of aliens, about 70%. 9/11 being an inside job, about 60%. I give these percentages because I don't know for sure, but given all the information I can find, I estimate a likeliness. I do the same for psychological, biological, and social analysys.
The reason I titles this "Hypocritical Response Squad" is because this group appears to be very open minded, willing to have a "rational" debate about topics. It even advertises that:
Sapient wrote:attacks personal or otherwise, are not acceptable, especially from people who aren't willing to admit that they could be wrong.
I have brought up a few topics for debate in which I did not feel like were being rationally debated, and even at times I felt as though i was being personally attacked for my ideas. Most of the time these are not even "my ideas", they are interpretations of other people's ideas, which I then estimate a percentage of possibility. So I don't necessarily "believe" these things, but I do give them consideration.
Two topics in particular are the 9/11 conspiracy (which I said I give a 60% chance of), and most recently, the idea of panspermia. Panspermia is the idea that life can be ejected off one planet (by means of comet collision or other method) and land on another planet and still be able to spread. This is a unique case because with the number of planets and meteors/asteroids, it almost has to happen somewhere in the universe, so I give the idea a 99.9% chance, but the odds of it happening to a given planet are more like 1 in a billion. I give the idea of fundamental building blocks of life forming life a 99.9(repeating)% chance, but again, the odds of it happening on a given planet 1 in a billion. Given both of these methods of life existing on a planet, both seem to have about the same likeliness.
I got flamed for supporting this idea, with comments like I had no understanding about how life or the universe works. I felt like my intellect was being attacked, and the debate on the topic did not get anywhere. So much for the "attacks personal or otherwise, are not acceptable" part. How about the "especially from people who aren't willing to admit that they could be wrong". Some quick searches will reveal that I am not retarded, and that RRS could actually be wrong.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/1998/december2/marsunder122.html
The idea that Martian microbes may have traveled to Earth as stowaways on meteorites sounds like science fiction, but it may be a good idea. George Thompson, professor emeritus of geophysics, says "the travel time and conditions in transit are probably tolerable for beasts like those found in bore holes," that is, thermophilic organisms. And the recent discovery of evidence of possible life forms in Martian meteorite ALH84001 makes interplanetary immigration of organisms from Mars seem less outlandish.The study was funded by the NASA Exobiology Program. SR
Posted on Stanfords website, funded by NASA, and I am the one with no understanding of life or the universe? I really don't care that much about panspermia, I just don't like being attacked personally when I am simply trying to get new ideas out in the open.
- Login to post comments
What? What topics where these in? Who insulted you?
What are you talking about?
In the article above who are you referring to as RRS/hypocrite RS?
As far as I know all of the core members of the squad agree that life on earth could've started from alien life. Emphasis on could've.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Adam,
You were making a lot of very improbable claims, and I do not think you know much concerning the evolution of life on this planet. You often confused evolution with abiogenesis, and suggested that this sort of super-anti-radiation bacteria could have traversed space and made it into our atmosphere and somehow initiated life on this earth. It is an incredulous claim. In order for your claim to have happened the following would have had to occur:
1.) bacteria manages to somehow hitch a ride off the original planet, surviving exfil from that planets atmosphere.
2.) bacteria would have to survive the cold of space
3.) bacteria would have to be able top withstand full radioactivity from billions of stars without the benefit of an atmosphere to shield it from destruction.
4.) after traveling millions (billions?) of lightyears through conditions such as black holes, radiation, the subzero temperatures, other collisions with asteroids and meteors, etc.. it has to survive entry into our atmosphere (assuming it passed close enough to be caught in earths gravitational field, and not the moon's gravity)
5.) the bacteria would have to have been completely unsusceptable to all sorts of radiation to survive space, so in order for it to have seeded our planet, and being as we are very susceptable to radiation poisoning, it would have to deevolve into substandard bacteria from its super bacteria state.
6.) would then evolve normally without any trace of it being from another planet
To claim this shows an utter ignorance of how evolution occured, and how abiogenesis would have occured. I was not flaming you as much as calling a spade a spade. Anything is, of course, possible, but not everything is probable. There in lies the difference.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
I would consider evolution possible in places other than this planet, which is the only form of evolution you are basing your opinion on. If you accept the obvious fact that life can originate on another planet, you have to accept the fact that it will also evolve in the conditions it originates in. That eliminates points 2, 3, and 5.
Points 1 and 4 are simply a part of the theory and the reason I give it a 1 in a billion chance.
Point 6 is irrelevant since there is no way to prove life did begin on this planet. We can not be sure our "control" subject is a valid comparison. Besides, this entire planet was made from space debris coming together in the early stages. As I said before, what is the difference of WHEN the material possible for life came to this planet? It could have been some of the first elements that congealed into a planetary form, or maybe that original material was void of water, carbon, and oxygen (which is very likely), but then those materials only started splattering into the planet hundreds of millions of years later.. or maybe (as the theory suggests), the partially or fully built life forms crashed here a billion years after the planet formed.
It's not this topic I care about, it's a rational debate i'm looking for, and not being referred to as having "utter ignorance"
Sorry, I forgot one more thing... Since I am not worthy of debate on this topic due to my utter ignorance, I urge you to aim any other claims of your superior knowledge to the author in the link I provided earlier, or to Stanford in general for allowing that on their website.
You simply do not understand all the factors involved for me to discuss this with you. You are still confusing evolution and abiogenesis. You are ignorant of the subject matter. Sorry.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Three things:
1) I don't think you necessarily eliminated Rook's points 2, 3, and 5 with what you've said. It looked to me as if he was saying that even if life did evolve on another planet (which is probably has), it's the LEAVING the planet, traversing space, and then successfully landing on another planet that is the improbable part of your story. If a bacteria evolved on another planet, it would evolve under the conditions of that planet, which would definitely NOT be the same conditions that bacteria would find while traversing space. In fact, the new conditions would likely be pretty extreme in comparison.
Also, even if that were true, you've only said that some already-evolved life arrived on our planet. You haven't explained the origins of life at all, because you've completely left out abiogenesis, which would still be a mystery.
2) I don't think bacteria could have arrived during the earth's formative stages, considering that it was being bombarded hundreds of times a day by debris and that it was hot and volcanic as (literally, I suppose) hell. If we knew of bacteria that lived inside of magma, that would be one thing, but the best we've got is life around volcanic heat vents, and that's only after the planet acquires water, which it didn't have in its formative stages. (Apparently even the majority at NASA think water is crucial to life, hence the obsession with Europa and whatnot). So I don't think your proposition that life could have started when the earth started is very likely to be true.
3) I've also heard that panspermia is a possibility for explainaing life on this planet, but I've yet to read any credible scientist who views it as the best possible explanation, and I don't think that scientists are thinking of it in the same way you seem to be.
When NASA says that life may have been seeded on this planet via a comet or an asteroid, I don't think that they mean that fully formed, living bacteria were planted on the earth. But they have discovered liquids that contain basic proteins in some meteorites that we've recovered. I think what they mean is that the ingredients for life may have been delivered, not the fully functioning life itself.
Also, the quote you've posted is just one scientist giving a hypothesis of sorts. You'd have to show us some evidence and research before we start viewing it as an acceptable explanation.
Conspiracy theories seem to make sense at first, too, but they often get debunked with research. Just because it makes sense doesn't mean that it's right.
We don't just accept the "popular view" here; we accept the views with the most solid evidence based on research.
The evidence for your case is, at best, an appeal to authority. An authority who, I might add, is not saying that the explanation given is the case.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
considering yourself too smart and the other person too dumb is a horrible way to claim a victory in a debate.
Like I said, I do not care that much about this topic. I wanted a good spirited debate with logical thinkers. The continued attacks are not helping the situation.
I still maintain that this is just another scientific theory that will be shunned by people that follow the mantra of "the way things have always been", or "the only way we've known it to be" until enough evidence is discovered to make it mainstream. I wish I could have got your opinions on the dozen other similar scientific theories such as black holes, meteor impacts, or this crazy "Sun centered" system people believe now before they were publicly accepted.
He's got a lot of shit to do, so if he feels like the knowledge difference doesn't stack up to a satisfying discussion that is worth taking time out from other things, that's where the debate ends. But it's his website, so you can't really complain. He's not saying that he beat you in a debate; he's saying that he doesn't feel like debating you.
Look at the bolded text. YES. This is not a website where we point out to people what we think could probably be true. This is a website where we point out to people what the majority of the scientific community have agreed is the best explanation given the research so far.
In other words, your panspermia thing not having enough documented research in support of it is acceptable grounds for us to shrug it off. Does that mean that nothing about your panspermia theory is right? Not necessarily. But we're not going to go around preaching to people that life started via panspermia if there is no research or documentation to support it. Why would we do that?
It's probable that, on some distant planet, there are leopard-skinned penguins, or something similar. That doesn't mean that there really are such animals, it only means that it's conceivable. But without research and documentation, I'm not going to go around telling everyone about leopard-skinned penguins.
That's a bit of a silly comparison, but it's the same point.
The sun-centered system is "crazy"? I hope that was said ironically.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I think that the majority of the arguments presented by Rook were ok, but bacterial spores can survive conditions that are extremely harsh including frozen in ice for 250 million years. Also, Archaebacteria have been found in some the harshest and most alien places on earth such as near volcanic fissures in the deep ocean. Those who think panspermia is possible say that life may have come from Mars originally, and between Mars and Earth there are no blackholes, wormholes, etc. So, I don't think panspermia is completely unrealistic, but the idea is definitely a radical departure from current thinking that has not stood the test of time. I would not call panspermia a closed case exactly.
There is a difference between being frozen in ice and being bombarded by deadly radiation every second. Although the frozen part would obviously be there.
Where water is present. Water is necessary for life. In order for this sort of process to have existed, water would have had to be present which is not the case for Adam's theory.
Again, ignoring the radiation which IS ABUNDANT between Mars and Earth, even between Earth and the Moon.
I would say it is so improbable that to consider it possible is a stretch.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
This is a fallacy of ad ignorantium. You cannot argue for something solely on grounds of the fact that it may be proven true in the future from citing precedents , nor can you appeal to the possibility that just because something is a radical proposal, that somehow gives weight to the hypothesis (this is the opposite of ad antiquitatem, an appeal to modernity). It is true that the mainstream scientific community had and has been wrong on many counts of things that were later accepted, including germ theory and plate techtonics. Contrarily, mainstream opinion has rejected concepts that later turned out to be incorrect anyway, such as N-rays and polywater. You cannot appeal to the possibility that the hypothesis in question might be correct merely rejected solely on grounds of precedent, otherwise any proposition could be justified this way. Whenever a radical proposal has been rejected and later accepted, the acceptance always came from that the principle gained a massive amount of evidence for it. That does not seem to be the case here, so this appeal cannot be made.
As for Panspermia explaining abiogenesis, I find it dubious. Whilst it is possible that certain organic molecules were synthesized elsewhere before landing on Earth (such as the base portion of nucelotides or amino acids), the propositon that the actual proto-biological polymers were seeded seems dubious at best, for the reasons some already outlined, but also because there is simply Occam's Razor to contend with. Our planet is hospitable to biological life, it is within astrophysical conditions that allow it. There don't seem to be any planets in very close proximity that have similar characteristics, and ever if there were, the probability of life-carrying seeding actually getting pulled in by Earth's gravity is mind-bogglingly small, assuming they survived any embarking from the planet upon which they were synthesized, which is also probabilistically absurd, whereas the principle of chemical evolution of autocatalysis is demonstratably useful and coherent.
Furthermore, Panspermia is unhelpful. If we are to apply proper abductive reasoning, we find it is elminated by Occam's Razor, that being that since there is no serious evidence to weight in particular favor of the theory, whether or not it has a good probability of being true must be decided upon by the elimination of superfluous concepts, and the idea that life came from another planet onto ours is certainly superfluous given that ours seems perfectly adept at being hospitable to biological life. I am certainly not suggesting that other planets are incapable of supporting life, probabilsitically, there must be billions of such planets, but being that ours has this capacity, the addition of life being brought here from other planets, given that the survival of biological molecules via intersteraller travel is so unlikely, seems like a completely useless theory. That is added to that it does not explain the origin of life, or the processes by which life arose, instead it invents a deus ex machina, an irreconcilable plot line.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
From what I gather, you are promoting two thougths here (correct me if I am wrong)
1. New theories do not deserve any credit because since it is "new", no one would know about it so it could not be accepted by the majority of scientists. Therefore a "new" theory deserves no credit. Even the theory of gravity falls under this category. No one should have given it any credit because it did not already have credit.
I give all new theories that make just as much sense as existing theories the same amount of credit. They ALL have to pass the same bullshit test regardless of age or public acceptance. Hopefully the sarcasm above (#1) is not what you really think, but regardless, it is close, and that just being science sheep and not thinkers.
2. It is infinitely more likely for life to form on each planet it exists on independently than for it to be brought there by other means.
Imagine this: Life did not exist at all. The entire universe is simply stars, planets, etc, but NO life. This would make perfect sense to me if I was an observer. The concept of life does not even exist. If another observer were to make a theory claiming life might exist, I would think he was a lunatic. The odds of life forming AT ALL are so miniscule, no observer considers it possible.
I guess my main question is what do you think the odds of life forming on a lifeless planet are? (considering the conditions are right) Actually, I have not recognized anyone suggesting any of their ideas on the origin of life on this planet (maybe it's posted somewhere on this website, if so send a link and i'll read it). From what I read it's almost as if you're promoting creation, since you are discrediting all other ideas and not suggesting a better one. I'd love to hear alternative ideas instead of bashing
Surely you mean incredible?
Some life has survived in pretty extreme conditions. If the "ship" it hitches a ride on had some residual heat or source of heat within it for the ride, it's not completely unbelievable that it should reach another planet and seed life there.
This isn't true. The further you are from the source of radiation, the less powerful its effect on you. Unless the "ship" passed through every one of those "billions of stars" then it wouldn't have to withstand the "full radiactivity". Only a very weak one - until it gets close to our early earth and its sun.
Are we here making the assumption that if panspermia is possible, only one asteroid in the history of the universe has a chance of carrying life? The odds of one life bearing piece of rock hitting a planet that it can make flourish with life are pretty low. But if this happens on more than one occasion, the odds would drop.
The earth's atmosphere is different now to what it once was. I'm not sure if this would make it easier for life bearing rocks to make impact without burning up - but I suspect it would.
As above, it wouldn't have to have some sort of radiation resisting superpower. But even if it did, that could just be the result of it being some form of extremophile. Eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioresistant
The problem with life is that even simple life is incredibly complex. Once you have life, whether it be a super-radiation resisting hero or not, you're over the hardest hurdle. Not that what follows isn't hard still.
The reason, as I understand it, for conjecturing panspermia, is that the conditions thought hostile for abiogenesis are the conditions that early earth appears to have had. Panspermia lets you say that life may have arisen somewhere with a more hospitable atmosphere then made its way here.
What on earth is this point supposed to be making? Would you look for its passport? Or perhaps an ancient buried space ship? What sort of trace would you find that we came from another planet?
Anyway, I personally think that panspermia is misguided - that any theory of abiogenesis apart from intelligent design is doomed to failure. But I don't see why it can't be considered anyway. As atheists, I think you've rejected the idea too quickly - or at least you have, Rook. There are reasons why panspermia was proposed, and its not just because it makes good science fiction.
Recently species of bacteria and fungi have been found that use radioactivity as a source for energy in the same way that plants use sunlight. Also, one of remarkable things about archaebacteria is their remarkable resistance to radiation. The other remarkable thing about archaebacteria is that they arose 3.5 billion years ago. I want to point out that I am not saying that panspermia is the way it happened, but some very scholarly publications (Nature, Science, etc.) have published articles about it. Francis Crick was originally a proponent of panspermia. Of course now that we have knowledge of the existance of self replicating RNA (RNA viruses) and protein (prions) based systems, most scientists believe that these are the original sources of life on Earth.
I'm glad you demonstrated an inability to read. I said a proposition cannot be argued for solely on grounds that it is radical any more than a proposition can be argued for solely on grounds that it is Orthodox.
For example if I said
X is unlikely to be true since it is not accepted by the mainstream
I would be making an ad antiquitatem fallacy.
On the other hand, if you said
X is just being rejected because it is not mainstream
without arguing for X, then you would be making an appeal to novelty.
But you don't know the existing theories do you? Can you tell me what a ribozyme is, how chemical natural selection works? Can you tell me how in vitro selection of ribozymes by elution works? Are you familiar with the central dogma of molecular biology (note, it is not called that because it is religiously adhered to. It is called so because it seems to be so ubiquitous t o all life)
I did not say that. I said that if our planet has the capacity for life to form, and is hospitable to it, then why do you feel the need to inject superfluous identities into the equation? Occam's Razor must be applied. In this regard, the theory is unscientific.
Absurd. Stars will generate via nucleosynthesis and supernovae the necessary elements for the formation of terrestrial planets and biological life. The arisal of biological life is not some random one in a billion thing. Chemical evolution is as well established as biological evolution.
Well, I'm in the middle of writing a 37-part lecture on molecular evolution, of which 5 parts are devoted to chemical evolution. And believe me, there are truly far better theories than Panspermia, and by better, I mean testable.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
1) The RRS Official position on this is exactly the same as our position on everything else: Show us the evidence.
2) At present, there is scant evidence for this theory. There is a potentially plausible hypothesis which might be theoretically possible. That's not much.
3) Those who are arguing against it are performing science. Science is the process of trying to prove things wrong. If all their attempts to argue against it prove to be invalid, there might be something to it.
In short, your accusation that we are closeminded is unfounded. Present us with the peer reviewed papers. Present us with the science. Don't just bitch about us not jumping on your bandwagon. Give us overwhelming evidence, and we'll be happy to agree with you.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
But this is the problem with it. Unlike all of the other theories of the origin of life, it doesn't make any testable predictions. THat being the case, how does one falsify it.
In fact, just last week I was doing a real experiment regarding a genuine biochemical theory about the origin of life (and no, it is not "God did it". That is also unscientific. It makes no testable predictions). It was not my experiment (I don't do primordial chemistry) I was just monitoring it, out of interest.
These experiments are simple, and are done en masse. THe purpose is to find as many ribozyme structural RNA sequences as possible. It begins with an enormous number of DNA molecules, randomly generated sequences, then transcribed in vitro to leave us with an enormous pool of RNA molecules. These will fold by themselves into conformations based on complementary base pairing. In doing this, we add a vast number of substrates to each test tube, for example, Adenosine triposphate, or Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide. Once an RNA can catalyse the transfer reaction, they incorporate the reactive subunit, and since the glass is lined tightly with binding agents that will capture only the reactive group, the ribozyme will fall through, whilst the ones without catalytic ability will be sifted out, such is called elution. The purpose of this is to build a databank of known RNA sequences with autocatalytic abilities, although the number must surely be enormous. After that, if any RNA molecules manage to catalyze anything, they are reverse transcribed back into DNA. The DNA is amplified several billion times by the Polymerase chain reaction, and then the RNA is forced back through the step of elution again (and again). This is a simulation of chemical natural selection, and is a useful information-gathering step in learning of how RNA catalysis constructured pre-cellular metabolism, although the experiment can be done on a much wider scale using lipid bilayers, since those form by themsleves and certainly preceded the dawn of cellular life.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Check this out, Antics:
Deluded, you're correct. I had not really thought this all the way through. On further reflection, and in light of your correction of my statement, I am revising my statement.
The idea you are proposing is not falsifiable, so it's not even up to the standards by which we could apply good science to it.
See? We're very open to good argumentation.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby, This idea does not need to be falsifiable, it just needs to be proven. Once it is proven, it would be illogical to assume it could be or would need to be falsified.
I said "Imagine this:", which means a hypothetical.
That part was not aimed at you, it was in response to Archeopteryx. Anyway, I do not need to know ALL existing theories, although I do as much research into as many of them as I can, I just assess new theories based on what I do know.
I assume you were being sarcastic?.. I would probably not be arguing with someone if I did not have basic understanding of grade school biology. I do not claim to know everything like many people around here act like (not referring to you on that part)
Anyway, I thought of another question related to this topic which is open for more analysys and less "faith".
First, what do you think the odds are of humans planting life on mars, intentionally or not, within the next 100 years? Next, what do you think the odds are of humans dying off, naturally or through self-destruction, within the next 500-1000 years? If you consider both of those fairly likely, even remotely, then the next question is what do you think the odds are of life evolving to intelligence on mars? If all three of these scenarios are remotely possible, then would one of these intelligent martians be crazy to think they were brought there from another civilization? (from the history of replies I get, I do expect a irrational response or two, but I just want thoughts)
Are you serious? I'm going to be nice and let that ridiculous comment slide. Do you know the basics of the scientific method? All propositions must have falsification criterion. If they didn't have falsification criterion, they could not make testable predictions.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
If Terraforming is possible, it will probably take just a smidgen longer than 100 years.
Naturally, the odds are very low? As for self-destruction, if we can survive the next 50 years, our long term future will be secure.
Mars is outside the Goldilocks Zone
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I never gave the life from asteriod theory much thought.
We simply do not have an 'Goldilocks' planets that would support (hence form...) life anywhere near Earth. The astroid would have to come from another solar system and:
1) Fly off in the direction of the Earth
2) Miss all the various obstacles in the Solar system
3) Miss all the obstacles between our Solar system and God knows where it was first formed.
4) Or for that matter not get close enough to orbit said obstacles.
5) Hit the planet
6) Hit it at the correct angle, so it just doesn't just 'skim' the surface.
etc... etc....
[edit]
I see Rook already pointing out the improbability of the life surviving on the asteriod. I'm covering the improbability of the damn asteriod hitting the Earth in the first place.
[/edit]
I'm really confused.
Is this not rational debate on the subject of panspermia?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
No, he doesn't. Nor does anybody else arguing for this extraterrestrial seeding. See earlier when I even called him on his ignorance. He is completely unaware of scientific methodologies. panspermia is no different then creationism. It is just ID from another perspective.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
While it's true that scientific theories are not "proven", it is also true that many now do not consider falsifiability a criterion of something being scientific. Consult wikipedia article for introduction - but really, you'll find this mentioned in many sources of philosophy of science, or even many scientists themselves. Eg, http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html#goldstein
Falsifiability as a point to distinguish science from non-science shows a misunderstanding of the broad nature of science and how many scientists actually work.
I never said I endorsed the Popperian methodology or rejected inductive science, I said that something having a falsification criterion is an indicator that it makes testable predictions. If the prediction is testable, then it could theoretically be proven false. THat is to say that when proving something via experiment, the experiment is such that if the prediction were false, the experiment would deliver a result which indicated it. Thtat is to say that falsification and proof are two sides of the same coin. If something makes a testable prediction, then it could theoretically be falsified. If something makes no testable predictions, we couldn't falsify it, and contrarily, we could not test it, since testing something would entail the possibility that if the prediction were false, it would be proven false by the test. THat was my primary concern with Panspermia. There is not way to test it. There is no established criterion upon which it can be tested. How do we discover if life arrived here from somewhere else, what criterion would establish this true sine qua non, without which there is not? There isn't, and by extension, there is no way to test the prediction.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I appreciate your concerns. However, I think there are positive reasons for accepting panspermia, and some that indicate scientific projects to help answer the question.
For example:
* If it could be demonstrated that the early earth's atmosphere was the wrong type to ever allow life to arise (because this is a real concern), and if we assume that it was not designed by an intelligence, then it must have come from elsewhere. So scientific projects that demonstrate the difficulties in life arising in the kind of atmosphere early earth had provide evidence for intelligent design or panspermia
* Objects in space will take time to reach earth. Mathematical models could be constructed to show the viability or inviability(?) of life making that journey, and what kind of resources would need to be on the vessel that carries it through space
* Investigations into the kinds of life that could survive in space would give some valuable information in developing the above mathematical model. Eg, life that can survive in vacuum, or on low amounts of energy or food, etc.
* What scenarios are there under which life on a vessel (eg, a rock) might become detached and hurtle through space at speeds that would let it reach another planet in time? (Mathematical models, geologists, I suppose would have work here)
* What are the odds of such missiles firing off in random directions and actually hitting a planet before the life dies, rather than just floating through the vastness of space for billions of years? Another project for the mathematicians
That's just a start, I suppose. The mathematical models, depending on their results, could provide strong evidence for or against the viability of panspermia.
I think as an idea, panspermia is not beyond scientific projects to help evaluate its feasibility. Of course, if we find that earth's early atmosphere is indeed conducive to the formation of life, panspermia is an entirely unecessary idea. But as I understand it, all current theory about earth's early atmosphere makes it highly unlikely life could have formed here by natural laws and chance alone.
I'm not sure that any of the projects above would falsify panspermia. Would certainly make it highly improbable, but not falsified. Yet there are still scientific tests or projects which we can engage in which do lend support for or against the theory.
Alright, that is fair. If Panspermia is being investigated in such a manner, that is to say it is being demonstrated it might be a necessary precondition, then it can be a scientific theory, provided that a smoking gun, so to speak, would deliver it as a necessary theory. I imagine that provided our technology gets advanced enough, we would be able to do extravagant tests like sending rocks laden with organic molecules through the atmosphere and seeing how many survive the scorch. Should be fun.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Since you were apparently addressing me directly on this first point, I'll attempt a reply.
I wasn't saying that they don't deserve to be considered; I was saying that they don't YET deserve to be the accepted explanation. If the new theory is right, and continually proves to be right despite whatever other theories, then it is right. But you don't know that it's right until it is sufficiently proven to be so.
It's not that they don't deserve any credit, it's that they haven't yet established the credit of the other theories.
And it is perfectly acceptable to choose the more well-established in the meantime.
Doesn't mean that it's wrong, but it does mean that it's not as credible yet.
And at first, they probably didn't give it any credit, just as they probably didn't give any credit to the round earth theory at first, or the heliocentric solar system. And at the time that those theories were not well established, that would be an acceptable stance for the common man. Once those theories became well-established through research, I would then deem it necessary for the common man to inform himself and stop his bitching.
Panspermia, as far as I can tell, has not reached that status yet.
It's not about how many people believe it; it's about how much research supports it. New theories unfortunately don't have the research yet, but that doesn't mean they won't get it.
I admit the possibility of all things that make sense to me, given the information I've gathered over the years, but admitting the possibility is a much different step than accepting as the best explanation.
True, but new theories have unfortunately passed fewer bullshit tests than old theories. Once they pass a few more bullshit tests, they start to become competition with the old theories.
I don't think it's fair to use the term "science sheep". The fact is that not every person is a scientist. Some of us have lives that don't involve doing lab experiments and burying our noses in scholarly journals or magazines. We've got other shit to do, and that's no fault of our own.
I've read about the formation of the solar system, I've read several books about evolution and how it works. In all of those books, abiogenesis was said to have taken place here on earth.
I do have the ability to think about panspermia, and I'm not just pushing your theory away because I'm a science sheep or because I just don't like it. But I'm not going to go out and hunt for asteroids, either, so that I can study their chemical compositions and say that I came to a conclusion all by myself. And reading all the theories and research on panspermia (I have a feeling there isn't much) is not very high on my books-to-read list.
This is why people can do science as an occupation. The rest of us have shit to do. I don't think that makes a person a science sheep. I think it means he is an average joe.
A person is a science sheep if he accepts a view only because an authority figure has told him it's the case, and he does so WITHOUT EXAMINING IT HIMSELF. I've read about evolution and about abiogenesis (not as much to read on the latter), and they seem to me more likely than the idea of life crashing into earth riding on the back of a whopping asteroid.
I hope you're not just upset because I don't agree with you. Disagreement is a key ingredient in healthy scientific community as well. (Even though I am not a scientist).
If I turn out to be wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
The "goldilox zone" has and will remain to be an estimate based on the earth's conditions. No one really knows how resiliant life can be, or what the defininate rules are for it's beginnings. Also, mars has not always been in the exact same condition it is now, it has a history that could be radically different than what we observe today. We only know what the Earth has to offer, and I think most of us can agree that the earth is only one of a billion possible starting points for life.
Even less than 100 years ago, most people were in complete denial that meteors even hit the earth at all (going by the biblical idea that god created a happy little place for us to live). The few "crazy" thinkers that accepted the possibility, but admitted it was very unlikely to happen. Now we have found hundreds of asteroid or meteor impacts across the planet, and have re-calculated it to be a very frequent occurance. The earth also covers up most of them through geologic activity and erosion. Just by looking at the moon you can tell it is very common, and the earth has more gravity and surface area than the moon, so it is probably being hit much more frequently. I have always been baffled by people that denied it happens. The shoemaker-levy impact is the biggest thing that really opened some eyes. As for your "requirements", steps 2-6 ARE happing all the time as I just explained, and 1 is not necessarily true. It could fly off in any direction and another source of gravity could redirect it. (example: http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/ast18aug99_1.htm#gravityassist) It just seems that you were trying to make my idea sound much more unbelievable and wildly crazy by exaggerating the requirements.
What?! I hope you mean the rationale behind the idea and not the idea itself.
All the points you made in that post were great, but this is the only one I have a comment for. I do believe that any life in the process of panspermia would need to be very resiliant, including the ability to go into permanent (or extremely long term) stasis, so time is not as much of a factor as actually reaching a destination. And since I always get questioned on "radical ideas" such as long term stasis, i'll include a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long-living_organisms#Coaxed_into_activity_after_stasis (btw, I hate providing references considering we all use the same internet and know how to search it)
I am not upset at all, I agree with everything you said. The only difference is that I am a little more liberal when giving odds of possibility than most people (especially hardcore skeptics). Considering the universe is so large and the number of stars and planets, if something CAN happen once, it's probably happening a hell of a lot. (by "can happen" i mean rationably plausable, not imaginarily possible, so i don't want to hear someone coming back with asking if i believe in "a billion flying spaghetti monsters"
I grew up with the understanding of the size of the universe and the chaos going on. Everyone freaks out on me saying "no one understands the size of the universe!", it's almost like when people say "you can't understand the awesomeness of GOD!". both are absurd. A few simple google searches on size of solar system, size of galaxy, and size of universe can put it all in perspective easily. Anyway, I always thought black holes existed, meteor impacts were common, planets were around many other stars out there, and life is very abundant. When I was 12 I first thought of "rogue black holes" and what is now "supermassive black holes", I saw a picture of a spiral galaxy and thought, damn that's one big black hole holding all that together. I never heard those ideas from other people, they just seemed obvious. I honestly believed most other people knew these things and it was all common sense, but as each one became more mainstream, I realized people were just beginning to accept it. The only one I still get resistance from is the life being abundant. At the current rate of the variables being adjusted in the drake equation, it is becoming more and more obvious. Also, the drake equation is fundamentally flawed, and/or missing a few factors, such as life on moons, colonization, panspermia, intentional seeding, etc. If humans decide to launch thousands of "bacteria rockets" to other planets, we would increase the drake equation by quite a bit. If we start colonizing other planets, we should increase the number of civilizations (or does that even count?)
-The Goldilocks Zone is a band via which planets within are within the temperature range such that they can form water, which is all but certainly a requisite for biological life.
-As I said before, the molecules that make up Earth based biology are fragile. They are so fragile that every day, your cells must correct, by means of nucleotide excision repair, 500 base pairs each, which are lost to denaturing processes. No biological polymer, certinaly not those thpat contitute life here, could possibly survive being scorched like that. I doubt that early progenitors like PNA could have survived. I just finished a lecture on biochemistry:
Molecular Evolution Lecture Section I Part iii) An Introduction to Biochemistry
which discusses some of these things.
You still have not answered my primary point. What makes Panspermia any more than a useless theory as of now? What possible reason is there to impute this solution, when we have a planet which is hospitable to life on which we are standing?
-I already pointed out that for genuine biochemical theories on the origin of life, we can perform the proper experiments. You cannot say the same.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I never said asteriods don't hit the Earth, the asteriods that do are from our solar system.
My point was that an asteriod with life on it is improbable as Rook pointed out, and even if life were on an asteriod, you have two options:
1) The life formed on the asteriod (unlikely)
2) The life formed on a planet (in a star's Goldilock's zone.) and then that planet got hit by an asteriod or something.
As for Mars, you're now getting into something testable.
I am not sure how to reply to this besides questioning the basis of the question. Are you claiming that once a viable theory has been posed, there is no need to bother considering any other possible theories? Just because it appears that life should be able to form on earth does not mean it did. I concede that it is very likely, but we can not be 100% sure, therefore we must leave room for other theories. I must be misunderstanding your question.
How about instead of performing a "test" on this theory, we simply get a few more pieces of evidence supporting it. For example, what if we found a meteorite on earth that had a trace of life on it. After testing, it was concluded that the meteorite was very likely from mars, and that the dna found was a predecessor to our bacteria here on earth. Of course there can be the debate of the accuracy of any of these tests or the possible contamination of the specimine, but given that the results are very accurate, how would you explain this?
Throughout this entire discussion I guess I have assumed everyone was aware of ALH 84001, the meteorite very similar to the one that I just descibed, considering it was the "Biggest discovery in the history of science" (at least on this topic). There is still debate over the likeliness that it actually contains life, or that is is an ancestor of life on earth, but it is a very lively debate between reputable scientists nonetheless.
If anyone arguing here did not know about this information, did not look it up, and continued to argue, you should be ashamed. There's no way for me to know who does and who does not do research, so I can't point fingers. Here's a few articles if anyone cares to actually read more.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9608/06/mars.life/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060512105730.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010227073558.htm
or try something like this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=meteor+with+life&btnG=Search
Really the only argument is that the "life" on this meteorite is about 10x smaller than any life we know of on earth. This goes back to my argument that we only have one planet and one source of life to base our opinion of all life across the entire universe, yet we insist we know it all when it comes to life. Just because no animals on earth are over 20ft tall (in general) doesn't mean they aren't anywhere else. In fact, if we believe dinosaurs existed and the devil did not plant bones here as a trick, they were up to about 50ft tall. So can we assume the tallest thing* in the universe can't be over 50ft? That's ridiculous. I do admit there is a limit to how small life can be, it must be larger than the dna that makes it up, but the life on the asteroid is large enough to contain all the basic requirements for life.
*tallest thing: excluding plants.
I don't think that you can prove panspermia can't happen, but I don't think that it happened. The only thing panspermia does really is move "chemical evolution" to another location. Now if we could find evidence of life on Mars, panspermia would be a lot more relevant.
To adam_antics:
You should start a debate on 9/11 truth movement in another forum, because I disagree with you about the likelihood that 9/11 was inside job.
I've heard of this before, and even though I believe that it is very unlikely, its a very interesting idea. Regardless if you could prove that organisms could survive a trip through space, it would just bring up the same questions that we are looking for now (what difference does it make if life orignated on Mars or the Earth?) Is panspermia a burning question to answer?
What a load of bull. If you don't have the time, or believe that the poster is a moron, then don't waste your time. Cosidering how knowledgeable he is on this subject his arguements were pretty unimpressive.
Readiness to answer all questions is the infallible sign of stupidity. Saul Bellow, Herzog
I don't like debating the 9/11 conspiracy for a few different reasons. First of all, there is an unbelievable amount of debatable facts within the debate, which I would estimate to be in the thousands. The history of mankind in general, history of the US gov't, current goals of the "power elite", who stood to benefit from 9/11 the most, who did benefit the most, how the history since 9/11 has played out, etc.. this is not even touching on the event itself, which is what most people debate.
Secondly, I think it is detremental to atheistic goals to debate 9/11. We are already a minority and we do not need a polarizing subject to fragment us even more. I wish all atheists could debate a topic such as this without turning on each other, but from my tests bringing it up, that is not likely.
And finally, (and this is true for almost all debates), we all have the same internet with all the same information available. If you are really interested in debating 9/11, you can simply debate with yourself. As long as you have an open mind and use unbiased search methodology, you really don't need me to tell you what I think.
From all the times I have debated 9/11, the most important trend I have noticed is that almost everyone that thinks it was not an inside job are the ones that have NOT done much, if any, research. The ones that are either on the fence or agree it was likely HAVE done research.
If you can be honest with me that you have spent extensive time researching the subject, and you can list 10 of the BEST 9/11 questions that have not been officially answered, then I would enjoy a debate. If you have not, then why bother debating?
*edit* "debatable facts".. I mean debatable explanations or interpretation of the facts.
I still have not read anything remotely resembling your original whining complaint of not being able to engage in a rational debate concerning your supposition entertaining, adams_antics.
Let's dry up the snot-noses and address these issues in their relevant threads which have a high probability of already existing on the server.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Considering you used a personal attack in your claim that you can not find any personal attacks, I can see how you missed them. Besides, the original one was in the chat room, not this forum, so you missed it anyway.
Seriously RRS, do you want to appear as a group of intelligent debaters or a stuck up squad of self-centered know-it-all's that think they're better than everyone else? (NOT intented as an attack, but a serious question because I do support this website). There is a difference between atheists who do research and know why they do not believe in god, and kids that only deny god because they think it's cool to be rebellious and make their parents think they can't control them. I know it's hard to filter out those kind of people, but they seem to be overrunning this place.
darth_josh, you should be ashamed of yourself. Statements such as "your original whining", and "Let's dry up the snot-noses" make you sound like a grade school kid. Whining? Are you kidding me? If by whining you mean expressing dissatisfaction, then you too were "whining" about my "whining". This term is unacceptable and should not even be allowed in rational discussions.
As a serious reply to help you out, here is what I considered inappropriate:
"an utter ignorance", and "You are ignorant" (i know "ignorance" isn't necessarily a malicious term, but in this case it was used that way)
"I'm glad you demonstrated an inability to read." (taken as a joke)
"See earlier when I even called him on his ignorance. He is completely unaware of scientific methodologies" (an attempt at defamation; my awareness could not have be known, yet it was stated as a known fact)
The rest of the debate was actually enjoyable though.
Now THAT is what I'm talking about.
You bit that bait. hook, line, and sinker.
Perhaps in the original discussion if you had continued to debate and reason instead of creating another thread topic WHINING about it then more credence would be given to your assertion of 'hypocrisy' concerning an entire group of individuals based upon your personal perception of one person.
Many others have entertained you in your grasp for the metaphorical needle in a panspermic supposition. You have received a rational debate on the issue. I'm sure it will be ongoing as new evidence and new suppositions give rise to new hypotheses.
Childish would describe the behavior of the petulant child declaring they are not a child in my opinion.
Is there an apology forthcoming for the rest of us who have addressed you?
None is needed.
Reactions can be as irrational as the original topic warrants subjectively.
For the record. I wondered if the topic had come up before on the boards. Since you are as fond of google as I then perhaps this might be as entertaining:
google search for panspermia RRS
You'll notice a few dated a LOOOOOONNNNNGGGG time ago.
We're going to get along just fine you and I. lol. As soon as you blow your little nose and get back into discussing things other than the way YOU want a discussion to pander to your sensitivities.
Love ya. Mean it.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I am not sure what you mean by "the original discussion". If you mean the chat room, there was no chance for discussion, just attacks, and you weren't there so how can you comment like that? If you mean on this thread, read my first post, it ends with "I really don't care that much about panspermia, I just don't like being attacked personally when I am simply trying to get new ideas out in the open.", then rook replies debating panspermia instead of the issue I intended. So I guess I took his bait too. Perhaps this should be titled "Deceptive Response Squad" instead of "Hypocritical Response Squad".
And for "if you had continued to debate and reason", Maybe I should continue to debate and reason how RRS (or at least a few members) fail to debate correctly instead of falling for tricks.
Again, the title of this thread and the first post are about RRS's debate style and not panspermia in particular, that was just one example.
I do not expect a discussion to "pander to my sensitivities", I just expect intelligent people to debate correctly, which means no personal attacks, no comments like "whining" or "blow your little nose", no claiming you're too smart to debate, etc. When people do this in a debate they are undermining the integrity of the debate, and themselves, more than the person they are attacking. That is the reason I am upset, not because my personal sensitivities.
*edited: The voices of RRS can be a bit militant, but if you have ever seen Richard Dawkins you know who their philosophical father is.
Besides, when you started this thread you had at most 2 posts. The fact that you would judge someone to be hypocritical because they did not listen to your arguments after 2 posts seems "childish". Now that everybody has met you half way, you have got to play nice.*
I haven't finished reading all the replies yet, but I just wanted to lay this down since I likely won't finish them all tonight...
adams_antics...you need to look up the word ignorant.
You being told that you are ignorant on the topic should not mean that you are stupid. It just means that you don't know. If you can not say that you DO know, then you ARE ignorant.
Accept the word for what it is.