Search for life
Terry
doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
snex
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
theres no reason to think that those conditions dont exist elsewhere.
Roger Coppock
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
There is no reason to think that ours is the only
formula for life.
DougC
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
It would also greatly lower the odds that life still exists here.
Now, describe those "conditions," and explain why they went away.
Doug Chandler
mel turner
news:v7jl235g82nfe5u1e...@4ax.com...
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
No, since the most relevant change to the earth was the arrival
of abundant life. On the early earth there wasn't anything at all
that was living and ready and able to eat any pre-life chemical
systems that might form and try to make a go of it. Unlike now,
there was a sterile planet without any life.
Today, any newly formed potential chemical precursors of life
would find themselves immediately classified as "food" by the
ubiquitous already existing microorganisms. Obviously, that's
not the case on any potentially earthlike planet without any
life yet.
So, your question is pretty much a non sequitur.
cheers
Mark VandeWettering
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
Do you think that the entire universe has conditions similar to those
currently found on earth?
Mark
Lexington Victoria-Rice
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
>
It only would if we had solid knowledge of all of the required
conditions for abiogenesis; and even at that we don't have anyway of
demonstrating that other locations throughout the universe can't have them.
--
"Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."
Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.
Steven J.
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
>
odds that babies are being born to other women?
-- Steven J.
Ye Old One
Oh no, the conditions for life to start may exist on millions of
worlds.
A lot of the conditions on our world today are the way they are
because of life.
--
Bob.
Glenn
Steven J.
for life to originate. However, it does not follow that just because
such a situation does not endure forever, it cannot exist --
especially if the reason a planet ceases to be suitable for
abiogenesis is that life has started and become well-established on
it.
-- Steven J.
Desertphile
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
No.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Ross Langerak
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
>
arise again. If the conditions did still exist - such as near a thermal
vent at the bottom of the ocean - the organic materials produced would
likely be gobbled up by existing organisms. This suggests that life is
unlikely to originate a second time on another planet, not that it is
unlikely to originate a first time. Other planets, if they are going to
produce life, are not affected by the conditions or history of the Earth.
JQ
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
No, it doesn't.
Glenn
Steven J.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Did it occur to you to actually respond to the OPs question?
I thought that, by implication and analogy, I was replying to the OP's
question. Or, at least (since others had offered more direct answers)
attempting to demonstrate why it was implicitly based on an
implausible assumption. I fear I had not properly taken into account
the danger of my reply being read and construed by obnoxious dullards.
-- Steven J.
derdag
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
It seems pretty consistant with my understanding of the Bible, that
the ID may have done this many times in many places.
Oh.. Do I have to allow your presupposition that the conditions
caused life, because I don't.
JTEM
Terry <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
*Sigh*
Odds? When & where the conditions were met, life
emerged. Period.
JTEM
> Life itself has altered the conditions on the Earth so that life
> cannot arise again.
Maybe. I'd say that it's more accurate to state that life can
not arise on Earth AS IT HAD ORIGINALLY because the
conditions have changed so much.
But, without a thorough understanding of the process -- and
any & all potential methods -- we really can't rule much out.
Glenn
comprehension.
Von R. Smith
What would you know about reading for comprehension, Glenn? I thought
it was a skill you held in contempt.
But you can prove me wrong by explaining in your own words what you
thought Steven's point was, and how it fails to answer the OP's
question. Or you can confirm my impression of you by making a non-
responsive smart-ass comment. Up to you.
Glenn
> On Apr 23, 6:22 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 12:01 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > -- [snip]
>
> > > > Did it occur to you to actually respond to the OPs question?
>
> > > I thought that, by implication and analogy, I was replying to the OP's
> > > question. Or, at least (since others had offered more direct answers)
> > > attempting to demonstrate why it was implicitly based on an
> > > implausible assumption. I fear I had not properly taken into account
> > > the danger of my reply being read and construed by obnoxious dullards.
>
> > Or written by one who manages to write with flair yet can't read for
> > comprehension.
>
> What would you know about reading for comprehension, Glenn? I thought
> it was a skill you held in contempt.
I thought you were a floating turd. Prove me wrong.
>
> But you can prove me wrong by explaining in your own words what you
> thought Steven's point was, and how it fails to answer the OP's
> question.
So all I have to do is explain what I thought to prove you wrong, eh.
>Or you can confirm my impression of you by making a non-
> responsive smart-ass comment. Up to you.
I don't give a hoot about what "thoughts" of yours you "confirm",
Von. Apparently you liked Steven's comments but not mine, and frankly
it doesn't matter to me, but in my book telling someone (by
implication) they didn't respond to a question isn't quite as smart-
assed a comment as saying "uh-huh" and calling the person a dullard.
Why don't you tell me why explaining in your own words what you
thought Steven's point was and how it answered or failed to answer the
OP's question, and I'll decide whether to confirm my impression of you
by your response. And then if you like, I'll let you know whether I
think you're an idiot or dullard. Make sure to snip the relevant
content as well as did Steven, cause that'll help.
Von R. Smith
> On Apr 23, 6:24 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:22 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 12:01 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > -- [snip]
>
> > > > > Did it occur to you to actually respond to the OPs question?
>
> > > > I thought that, by implication and analogy, I was replying to the OP's
> > > > question. Or, at least (since others had offered more direct answers)
> > > > attempting to demonstrate why it was implicitly based on an
> > > > implausible assumption. I fear I had not properly taken into account
> > > > the danger of my reply being read and construed by obnoxious dullards.
>
> > > Or written by one who manages to write with flair yet can't read for
> > > comprehension.
>
> > What would you know about reading for comprehension, Glenn? I thought
> > it was a skill you held in contempt.
>
> I thought you were a floating turd. Prove me wrong.
Juvenile and non-responsive.
>
> > But you can prove me wrong by explaining in your own words what you
> > thought Steven's point was, and how it fails to answer the OP's
> > question.
>
> So all I have to do is explain what I thought to prove you wrong, eh.
>
> >Or you can confirm my impression of you by making a non-
> > responsive smart-ass comment. Up to you.
>
> I don't give a hoot about what "thoughts" of yours you "confirm",
> Von.
> Apparently you liked Steven's comments but not mine, and frankly
> it doesn't matter to me, but in my book telling someone (by
> implication) they didn't respond to a question isn't quite as smart-
> assed a comment as saying "uh-huh" and calling the person a dullard.
Did somebody say "uh-huh" or call you a dullard, Glenn? I didn't.
>
> Why don't you tell me why explaining in your own words what you
> thought Steven's point was and how it answered or failed to answer the
> OP's question,
I asked you first, and moreover I'm not the one suggesting that Steven
didn't answer the OP's question. So tell me what you thought the OP's
original question was, and how Steven's response failed to answer it.
Glenn
> On Apr 23, 9:45 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:24 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 6:22 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 12:01 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > -- [snip]
>
> > > > > > Did it occur to you to actually respond to the OPs question?
>
> > > > > I thought that, by implication and analogy, I was replying to the OP's
> > > > > question. Or, at least (since others had offered more direct answers)
> > > > > attempting to demonstrate why it was implicitly based on an
> > > > > implausible assumption. I fear I had not properly taken into account
> > > > > the danger of my reply being read and construed by obnoxious dullards.
>
> > > > Or written by one who manages to write with flair yet can't read for
> > > > comprehension.
>
> > > What would you know about reading for comprehension, Glenn? I thought
> > > it was a skill you held in contempt.
>
> > I thought you were a floating turd. Prove me wrong.
>
> Juvenile and non-responsive.
>
little flame war? I thought by implication and analogy that I had
responded in kind to you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > But you can prove me wrong by explaining in your own words what you
> > > thought Steven's point was, and how it fails to answer the OP's
> > > question.
>
> > So all I have to do is explain what I thought to prove you wrong, eh.
>
> > >Or you can confirm my impression of you by making a non-
> > > responsive smart-ass comment. Up to you.
>
> > I don't give a hoot about what "thoughts" of yours you "confirm",
> > Von.
> > Apparently you liked Steven's comments but not mine, and frankly
> > it doesn't matter to me, but in my book telling someone (by
> > implication) they didn't respond to a question isn't quite as smart-
> > assed a comment as saying "uh-huh" and calling the person a dullard.
>
> Did somebody say "uh-huh" or call you a dullard, Glenn? I didn't.
>
>
> > Why don't you tell me why explaining in your own words what you
> > thought Steven's point was and how it answered or failed to answer the
> > OP's question,
>
> I asked you first, and moreover I'm not the one suggesting that Steven
> didn't answer the OP's question. So tell me what you thought the OP's
> original question was, and how Steven's response failed to answer it.
>
that seemed more important to you than to have me tell you my thoughts
so that I could redeem myself in your eyes. This does make about as
much of an interesting exchange as talking about the odds of unknown
life existing elsewhere. If *you* feel you have something to
contribute, by all means be my guest. Or just continue to float.
Von R. Smith
> On Apr 23, 3:43 pm, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:45 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 6:24 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 6:22 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 12:01 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > -- [snip]
>
> > > > > > > Did it occur to you to actually respond to the OPs question?
>
> > > > > > I thought that, by implication and analogy, I was replying to the OP's
> > > > > > question. Or, at least (since others had offered more direct answers)
> > > > > > attempting to demonstrate why it was implicitly based on an
> > > > > > implausible assumption. I fear I had not properly taken into account
> > > > > > the danger of my reply being read and construed by obnoxious dullards.
>
> > > > > Or written by one who manages to write with flair yet can't read for
> > > > > comprehension.
>
> > > > What would you know about reading for comprehension, Glenn? I thought
> > > > it was a skill you held in contempt.
>
> > > I thought you were a floating turd. Prove me wrong.
>
> > Juvenile and non-responsive.
>
> Just as your little comment was, Von. Do you intend to continue this
> little flame war?
Sure, until I get bored. It's mildly amusing, like shaking a jar with
ants in it to see if they'll fight.
> I thought by implication and analogy that I had
> responded in kind to you.
You were the one who jumped into this thread with snide comments.
What sort of responses were you looking for?
> > > > But you can prove me wrong by explaining in your own words what you
> > > > thought Steven's point was, and how it fails to answer the OP's
> > > > question.
>
> > > So all I have to do is explain what I thought to prove you wrong, eh.
>
> > > >Or you can confirm my impression of you by making a non-
> > > > responsive smart-ass comment. Up to you.
>
> > > I don't give a hoot about what "thoughts" of yours you "confirm",
> > > Von.
> > > Apparently you liked Steven's comments but not mine, and frankly
> > > it doesn't matter to me, but in my book telling someone (by
> > > implication) they didn't respond to a question isn't quite as smart-
> > > assed a comment as saying "uh-huh" and calling the person a dullard.
>
> > Did somebody say "uh-huh" or call you a dullard, Glenn? I didn't.
>
> Are you dense or just playing troll?
No, Glenn, I'm asking you if somebody said "uh-huh" or called you a
dullard. For somebody who started this exchange by demanding whether
Steven was going to answer a question, you don't seem too keen to
answer questions yourself.
>
> > > Why don't you tell me why explaining in your own words what you
> > > thought Steven's point was and how it answered or failed to answer the
> > > OP's question,
>
> > I asked you first, and moreover I'm not the one suggesting that Steven
> > didn't answer the OP's question. So tell me what you thought the OP's
> > original question was, and how Steven's response failed to answer it.
>
> Actually you made some comment about reading comprehension first,
In this thread? No, Glenn, I did not. Perhaps you are thinking about
an earlier exchange?
> and
> that seemed more important to you than to have me tell you my thoughts
> so that I could redeem myself in your eyes. This does make about as
> much of an interesting exchange as talking about the odds of unknown
> life existing elsewhere. If *you* feel you have something to
> contribute, by all means be my guest. Or just continue to float.-
That's nice. Now explain to me in your own words what you thought
Steven J meant, and why it fails to answer the OP's question. It was
important enough for you to jump into the thread in the first place,
so why are you so reluctant about clarifying your position?
Glenn
Perhaps you should take a hint.
>
> > and
> > that seemed more important to you than to have me tell you my thoughts
> > so that I could redeem myself in your eyes. This does make about as
> > much of an interesting exchange as talking about the odds of unknown
> > life existing elsewhere. If *you* feel you have something to
> > contribute, by all means be my guest. Or just continue to float.-
>
> That's nice. Now explain to me in your own words what you thought
> Steven J meant, and why it fails to answer the OP's question. It was
> important enough for you to jump into the thread in the first place,
> so why are you so reluctant about clarifying your position?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
snex
comprehension." - said by you one post earlier than von.
Von R. Smith
> On Apr 23, 7:19 pm, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:47 pm,Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 3:43 pm, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Apr 23, 6:24 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 12:01 am,Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > -- [snip]
>
> > > > > > > > > Did it occur to you to actually respond to the OPs question?
>
> > > > > > > > I thought that, by implication and analogy, I was replying to the OP's
> > > > > > > > question. Or, at least (since others had offered more direct answers)
> > > > > > > > attempting to demonstrate why it was implicitly based on an
> > > > > > > > implausible assumption. I fear I had not properly taken into account
> > > > > > > > the danger of my reply being read and construed by obnoxious dullards.
>
> > > > > > > Or written by one who manages to write with flair yet can't read for
> > > > > > > comprehension.
>
> > > > > > it was a skill you held in contempt.
>
> > > > > I thought you were a floating turd. Prove me wrong.
>
> > > > Juvenile and non-responsive.
>
> > > Just as your little comment was, Von. Do you intend to continue this
> > > little flame war?
>
> > Sure, until I get bored. It's mildly amusing, like shaking a jar with
> > ants in it to see if they'll fight.
>
> > > I thought by implication and analogy that I had
> > > responded in kind to you.
>
> > You were the one who jumped into this thread with snide comments.
> > What sort of responses were you looking for?
>
> > > > > > But you can prove me wrong by explaining in your own words what you
> > > > > > thought Steven's point was, and how it fails to answer the OP's
> > > > > > question.
>
> > > > > So all I have to do is explain what I thought to prove you wrong, eh.
>
> > > > > >Or you can confirm my impression of you by making a non-
> > > > > > responsive smart-ass comment. Up to you.
>
> > > > > I don't give a hoot about what "thoughts" of yours you "confirm",
> > > > > Von.
> > > > > Apparently you liked Steven's comments but not mine, and frankly
> > > > > it doesn't matter to me, but in my book telling someone (by
> > > > > implication) they didn't respond to a question isn't quite as smart-
> > > > > assed a comment as saying "uh-huh" and calling the person a dullard.
>
>
> > > Are you dense or just playing troll?
>
> > dullard. For somebody who started this exchange by demanding whether
> > Steven was going to answer a question, you don't seem too keen to
> > answer questions yourself.
>
> > > > > Why don't you tell me why explaining in your own words what you
> > > > > thought Steven's point was and how it answered or failed to answer the
> > > > > OP's question,
>
> > > > I asked you first, and moreover I'm not the one suggesting that Steven
> > > > didn't answer the OP's question. So tell me what you thought the OP's
> > > > original question was, and how Steven's response failed to answer it.
>
> > > Actually you made some comment about reading comprehension first,
>
> > an earlier exchange?
>
> "What would you know about reading for comprehension,Glenn? I
> thought
> it was a skill you held in contempt."
>
> Perhaps you should take a hint.
snex has already pointed out the remark to which the above is a
response, a response *you* had made to Steven J. But you already knew
that. What was the point of telling such a transparent lie, Glenn?
In the meantime, you still haven't told me:
1) who, if anybody, said "uh-huh" or called you a dullard in this
thread;
2) what you think Steven J.'s response to Terry meant, and why you
think it fails to answer the OP's question.
Nick Keighley
> On Apr 21, 10:50 pm, Terry <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> > If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> > doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
>
> It seems pretty consistant with my understanding of the Bible, that
> the ID may have done this many times in many places.
I think you have an unusual understanding of the Bible.
> Oh.. Do I have to allow your presupposition that the conditions
> caused life, because I don't.
I don't think the conditions *caused* life. They allowed it to occur.
--
Nick Keighley
Nick Keighley
> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
A big difference in current conditions compared with the time
that life originated is all the free oxygen in the atmospere.
Now what could have caused that? And how does that affect the
probability of life arising elsewhere?
I think the most impressive thing is that life seemed to appear on
earth almost as soon as it was possible. That is when the surface
stopped being bombarded with stray bits of matter left over from
the formation of the solar system.
--
Nick Keighley
Glenn
what?
AC
> On Apr 23, 9:45 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 6:24 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 6:22 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 12:01 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > -- [snip]
>>
>> > > > > Did it occur to you to actually respond to the OPs question?
>>
>> > > > I thought that, by implication and analogy, I was replying to the OP's
>> > > > question. Or, at least (since others had offered more direct answers)
>> > > > attempting to demonstrate why it was implicitly based on an
>> > > > implausible assumption. I fear I had not properly taken into account
>> > > > the danger of my reply being read and construed by obnoxious dullards.
>>
>> > > Or written by one who manages to write with flair yet can't read for
>> > > comprehension.
>>
>> > What would you know about reading for comprehension, Glenn? I thought
>> > it was a skill you held in contempt.
>>
>> I thought you were a floating turd. Prove me wrong.
>
>
> Juvenile and non-responsive.
That aptly describes Glenn.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
> On Apr 21, 10:50 pm, Terry <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
>> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
>
> It seems pretty consistant with my understanding of the Bible, that
> the ID may have done this many times in many places.
I'd love to see where in the Bible it says that.
>
> Oh.. Do I have to allow your presupposition that the conditions
> caused life, because I don't.
"Conditions caused life"? What exactly does that mean.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Von R. Smith
> On Apr 23, 10:55 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 11:39 pm,Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 7:19 pm, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Apr 23, 3:43 pm, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 6:24 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 12:01 am,Glenn<GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > "Or written by one who manages to write with flair yet can't read for
> > comprehension." - said by you one post earlier than von.
>
> And you're having a problem distinguishing between me and Steven, or
> what?
Are you claiming that Steven wrote the above comment and not you?