Current Events > Existence of aliens does not actually make sense since abiogenesis is NOT proven

(+) Yeah! (+)

Stop dodging questions.
If life can only be created, then what created the 'creator'?

Why was no more 'creators' created?

Why didnt these 'creator' create life on other planets?

You claim that NASA have discovered and "scanned" thousands of planets without finding life, how do you scan a planet for life that is extremely far away?
We dont know if those planet got life or not until we get there.

But lets say that they are all dead barren worlds, the Milky Way alone got between 800 billion and 8 trillion planets, with some estimates placing that number as high a 8 trillion! That is 0.000000005% of the planets in our galaxy.

So the chances that it exist a single 'creator' in the universe that have created life on a single planet is much less than abiogenesis.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

God would be an alien, yes.

Maybe whenever we look for them, they all hide behind rocks.

Ah, the classic "I'm smarter than the entire scientific and academic communities" stance. There's no changing this guy's mind.

What makes more sense?

All life must come from some intelligent creator... who we can't explain the existance of since that creator would also have to been created by another creator who also is created by another creator on a loop off into infinity.

Or

Life just sparks up every now and then naturally without the need for a creator.

Which is a less messy theory, honestly?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I feel like this is what happens when you don't kick it with people IRL. No one in your life challenges you on anything, so you just start to believe your always right. Enough of that kind of thinking, and you become delusional in your abilities.

Mackorov posted...

And this means humans could really be the only living beings in the entire universe.

Is it that hard to accept?

Intelligent design actually means the opposite.
Either there is Intelligent design and we exist along with whatever created us or abiogenesis is real, we exist because of it and there is a possibility that life on other planets could have developed the same way.

GeraldDarko posted...

Ah, the classic "I'm smarter than the entire scientific and academic communities" stance. There's no changing this guy's mind.

The only thing worse than a determined creationist is a smug determined creationist. Wait until TC finds out that gravity too is only a theory

Also TC is making the classic mistake of thinking science claims to have all the answers, and thus it doesnt, so any alternative I suggest is just as viable!

It doesnt claim to have all the answers. it makes observations and arrives at the most logical conclusion at the time based on evidence gathered. Evolution isnt completely proven, its just the best theory we have. Over time theories become increasingly proven or suddenly turned on their head.

Meanwhile what does claim to have all the answers and refuses to update itself when disproved? Religion.

Life happened here

It could happen somewhere else, on untold numbers of planets that would support it

That's the entire argument. No Abby Genesis shit required

Mackorov posted...

I was never a believer in alien life out there and it's so incredibly stupid the scientific community and the general public alike are so harped on believing this possibility when the ENTIRE possibility actually rests solely on given presumption of abiogenesis in the first place.

No, the possibility of aliens existing rests on the ability for things to live, which has been demonstrated. If life exists here, life could exist in places other than here. That doesn't mean that they defo exist, but it means there is a possibility that they might.

For those that dont know, abiogenesis is basically the totally unproven, untested and unverified hypothesis that life can be formed from inorganic matter. This is the main basis scientists rest their case on the beginning of life because if it's true, that means life could be formed in the same way in other planets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

We have actually managed to synthesise organic compounds from inorganic compounds. This isn't the same as what we would recognise as life, but it's an important step which demands further research.

Well, except for one fact they are conveniently choosing to ignore:

Abiogensis CANNOT be proven at all.

It could, if we were able to create life from inorganic compounds. Doing a thing tends to prove that a thing can be done.

This means there's the very much equal possibility that life does NOT arise from inorganic matter. So then, you may ask... wouldn't that mean the only other alternative is intelligent design, that some 'creator' created living beings? Yes, but why not?? Given both cases are equally unproven, why does the scientific community shun the intelligent design possibility and choose to succumb to their bias on abiogenesis only?

Why is that the only alternative, and why do you think it should be given any merit? There's a shit ton of evidence that disprove intelligent design. There's also the teeny tiny minor issue of a creator not being proven to exist, which is a required component of intelligent design. This is despite thousands of years of people across pretty much every culture with any form of science trying to prove that god(s) exists.

Another thing is that if abiogenesis is disproven, all that means is that abiogenesis is disproven. It doesn't automatically mean than any other hypothesis for the origin of life is the truth.

Finally, aliens and abiogenesis are not related hypotheses. If it turns out that intelligent design is correct, there's nothing that says that this creator couldn't have also created aliens.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Life on earth could really be it. Or it may not

The universe is so vastly huge and so vastly old that any incidences of life are statistically never going to know another existed.

I've used the example before. It's like wakka mole. One pops up the goes down the hole. Time in the universe is linear. It's like floatsam in a river. The other floatsam is downstream and out of sight. We don't know really how long it would take to become a Type 1 and above civilization. We are just babies taking our first steps. Just in our galaxy there might have been just one other. Finding evidence of it is like searching for a needle in a haystack. You would have check every planet and every star. Goodluck with that

Abiogenesis is not scientific law, but that does not mean:

A) That it has proven false. It simply means we are still unsure.

B) You don't get to claim another explanation with even less evidence to support it just because we don't have conclusive proof.

Torgo posted...

B) You don't get to claim another explanation with even less evidence to support it just because we don't have conclusive proof.

But without that to fall back on, religion would have no basis.

And that would be terrible.

Dark_Arbron posted...

But without that to fall back on, religion would have no basis.

And that would be terrible.

Religion sells a false sense of certainty and comfort.

What this topic is the perfect example of is "God of the gaps" where a theist fills in any holes in our ever developing scientific knowledge with "we don't know therefore God!".

Mackorov posted...

Such a well-engineered thing is likely no damn result of sheer inorganic randomness.

You're correct. There's absolutely nothing random about abiogenesis. In fact it is deterministic anywhere the conditions for life are met.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5686405/

The laws of the universe are simply thus: if life can form, it will form

Torgo posted...

Religion sells a false sense of certainty and comfort.

What this topic is the perfect example of is "God of the gaps" where a theist fills in any holes in our ever developing scientific knowledge with "we don't know therefore God!".

Just to clarify I was being sarcastic.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Just to clarify I was being sarcastic.

I know, I was adding my thoughts on to your 100% solid take.

In case you were unfamiliar with the specific 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

I can't comprehend anything at all existing anyway.

Creationist who can't comprehend that humans are not special in the Universe.

I don't think of science and religion as operating in the same space or playing by the same rules.

I don't know why people cling to a god so much. Even if a god exists, they are most likely evil, don't care about us, or some kind of entity like a particle that just exists, etc.

Also, an existence of a god doesn't mean there aren't aliens. That's a pretty shortsighted line of thinking. There have existed millions of different species and life on Earth. If a god really only cares about humans, why create millions of different species? Why not just make humans and stop there? Take that further with the gargantuan universe and the estimated septillion planets in the entire universe. If god only cared about us, there would be no reason to create that many planets. The TC also mentioned we scanned thousands of planets...that's only 0.000000001 percent (I just put in a bunch of zeros. I don't know the exact amount lol. But it's infinitesimally small) of all the planets in the universe.

Just shortsighted thinking. Expand your mind.

Torgo posted...

I know, I was adding my thoughts on to your 100% solid take.

In case you were unfamiliar with the specific 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

I swear nothing gets a pass for moving the goalposts the way religion does.

We know the age of the Earth. We know where lightning comes from. We know the layout of the human body. These are things that disprove parts of pretty much any creation myth. But they just claim okay but the rest of it could still be true! or the
Bible was never meant to be literal.

Meanwhile if you try that with your alibi in the interrogation room, youre screwed. Theyre not going to give you the benefit of the doubt for the rest of your story when theyve already shown you were 100 miles away from where you said you were.

Pikachuchupika posted...

I don't know why people cling to a god so much.

They grew up with it, and its too much effort to confront and overcome. Im confident that if you could erase religion from everyones memories and then reintroduce it as a new concept, the majority would say that doesnt make sense.

Mackorov posted...

This means there's the very much equal possibility that life does NOT arise from inorganic matter. So then, you may ask... wouldn't that mean the only other alternative is intelligent design, that some 'creator' created living beings? Yes, but why not?? Given both cases are equally unproven, why does the scientific community shun the intelligent design possibility and choose to succumb to their bias on abiogenesis only?

One thing that always raises a red flag for me in discussions like this, and it seems to happen every single time, is how when the creative force is brought up, it is ALWAYS as a singular being, when there's no more reason to suppose that than to suppose a whole race of such beings. It's almost like there's an agenda here.

Next we'll be hearing that this singular Creator is a male, and lots of other bullshit to follow from there.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Well duh, it makes perfect sense.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This is a pretty interesting take on it. Very interesting.

space is not real, it is fake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emfYR8EH-yo

JOIN US IN OUR QUEST FOR TRUTH

Mackorov posted...

So then, you may ask... wouldn't that mean the only other alternative is intelligent design, that some 'creator' created living beings? Yes, but why not?? Given both cases are equally unproven, why does the scientific community shun the intelligent design possibility and choose to succumb to their bias on abiogenesis only?

In that case it could be any other explanation anyone else has ever posited... Like we are in a simulation, or that biological life is born from the dreams of inorganic compounds that require our processes to advance their slow geological transformations.

At best this simply means we have one other wild guess to ponder while science continues the pursuit of testable and measurable facts to actually try and understand whether the answer is abiogenesis or something no one could have imagined.

AloofHermit posted...

space is not real, it is fake

If being serious, what do you believe space actually is?

If not being serious, post a fun answer and see if I can figure out if you are serious or not.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Space isn't actually nothingness...lol. There are particles that pop in and out of existence (quantum fluctuations), so there is no such thing as "nothingness" even in the deepest areas of space that doesn't seem to have anything.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Space isn't exactly nothing, it's just extremely low density.

Pikachuchupika posted...

Space isn't actually nothingness...lol. There are particles that pop in and out of existence (quantum fluctuations), so there is no such thing as "nothingness" even in the deepest areas of space that doesn't seem to have anything.

Yup.

True nothingness is something I'm not even sure we have actually detected or been able to measure.

Mackorov posted...

And this means humans could really be the only living beings in the entire universe.

Is it that hard to accept?

I can accept it.
Even if aliens did exist, if we can't travel back and forth to their world or trade with them or procreate with them, I'm not interested, it's the same as them not existing to me.

This thread premise is giving off the same energy of a Twitter thread I was sent of some dude saying he was going to go to Antarctica to prove it's not real and actually the ice wall, or something lol.

pegusus123456 posted...

I don't know how you've managed it through text, but you give off an intense vibe of smelling like cat piss.

Lmao

Abiogenesis is evident.

Skankhair posted...

Abiogenesis is evident.

Theists love to take the honest uncertainty of science, and then assert their own baseless conclusion as though its an either-or proposition.

Torgo posted...

If being serious, what do you believe space actually is?

If not being serious, post a fun answer and see if I can figure out if you are serious or not.

i am

and theres nothing there its fake

People think we can 'scan' planets for life? Lmao. My dude, there could be life on the closest star to our own and we would have zero ability to tell. Best we can guess is temperature and atmosphere composition based on the light that reaches us.

Did ppl think exoplanets were real prior to 1992

God made Adam and Eve not someone from the planet Antares!

what if the developer only bothered to make life on Earth, and just procedurally generated the rest of the universe

Link_HT posted...

People think we can 'scan' planets for life? Lmao. My dude, there could be life on the closest star to our own and we would have zero ability to tell. Best we can guess is temperature and atmosphere composition based on the light that reaches us.

Sounds like they've played too much Mass Effect and Starfield.