Why life on Venus or any other planet DESTROYS abiogenesis

originally posted by: Lux96
a reply to: neoholographic

I have no real opinion about this topic because I know nothing about it, but your explanation does sounds reasonable, however I am also open to the fact some life comes into existence by some random occurances, but I do certainly agree on the 'will to live and adapt for that sake' part which does seem to bear evidence of some primordial will to live in all forms of life, which would point in the direction of intelligent design.

I agree!

It points to the direction of intelligent design. We don't only see life that has the will to survive and adapt to it's environment, it manipulates information in DNA to find the right adaptations to survive in an environment. This is what we do with our will. We manipulate and discover information that helps us survive and build civilizations!

a reply to: neoholographic

A discovery of microbial life on Venus, Mars, Titan, Europa or any other planet destroys abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution.

No it doesn't. It would demonstrate that abiogenesis can occur anywhere under a variety of conditions, and therefore we can expect to find life in abundance in the Universe.

Trying to flip that conclusion is gaslighting.

The ATS motto is "Deny Ignorance"; such gaslighting only AFFIRMS ignorance.

a reply to: neoholographic

If you don't think abiogenesis is correct, and I also think it's incorrect, what do you think about panspermia and how do you think life started?

originally posted by: Romeopsi
a reply to: neoholographic

If you don't think abiogenesis is correct, and I also think it's incorrect, what do you think about panspermia and how do you think life started?

Good question.

I do think panspermia makes more sense. There's been evidence of the building blocks of life in comets, meteorite's and proteins in space.

Protein discovered inside a meteorite

phys.org...

BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE CAN FORM IN DEEP SPACE, SCIENTISTS SAY

ACCORDING TO NEW RESEARCH, THE AMINO ACIDS CAN FORM IN THE VOID OF SPACE, BEFORE PLANETS OR EVEN STARS, IN A PHENOMENON TERMED "DARK CHEMISTRY."

futurism.com...

Scientists Find Protein for First Time in Outer Space

weather.com...

So it's Occam's Razor. It makes more sense that the life is seeded on a planet through meteorites, comets or space dust and it has a will to survive and adapt to it's environment instead of abiogenesis occuring on each planet which makes zero sense because there's no evidence that the "right conditions" causes non living matter too ozze out of the primordial goo packed with more information than a supercomputer. You would have to form a theory to show how abiogenesis occurs in all of these different environments. It's asinine.

You might then say, Neo, it makes sense that life seeds plantets but there's still the question as to how life began.

I would say the Bible explains this perfectly. Life has always existed and and entered into are universe at the moment of creation just like life begins at the moment of conception. The Bible says In the beginning God Created. God imparted life with will at the moment the universe was Created.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Romeopsi
a reply to: neoholographic

If you don't think abiogenesis is correct, and I also think it's incorrect, what do you think about panspermia and how do you think life started?

I do think panspermia makes more sense. There's been evidence of the building blocks of life in comets, meteorite's and proteins in space.

So where and how did life start? Panspermia might very well be fact, but that only pushes the origin back. Even if life on earth didn't begin on Earth but was seeded from elsewhere, that life had to begin somewhere.

From what you are saying about building blocks of life is space (which is true), it sounds as if you are still saying abiogenesis can happen. Maybe you don't think it happened on Earth, but it sounds like you think it can happen.

But if so -- ie., if life can begin begin elsewhere, possibly by using the building blocks of life the might be ubiquitous in space and found on asteroids and comets -- then why not that same thing happening on Earth using those same building blocks? Conversely, even if life on Earth did begin elsewhere and came here via panspermia, wouldn't that beginning still be abiogenesis?

a reply to: neoholographic

The Bible tells us in Genesis 1 verse 1 that God Created

Ergo... abiogenesis. Or is your God the result of biological evolution? No? Then... abiogenesis.

a reply to: neoholographic

I would say that the relentless impulse to centralize any spiritual or metaphysical discussion around the rigid constructs of biblical doctrine is stifling the biological territories we could be exploring. Let the facts speak for themselves instead of using them to prop up archaic mythology like harnessing incredible flying reindeer to a mundane sleigh. Veering credibility from honest science to irrelevant ideologies is frankly quite lazy and opportunist, but that's not surprising.

a reply to: Box of Rain

You said:

So where and how did life start?

This question is for people that accept the fantasy of abiogenesis. Here's an article from Scientific American.:

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

Exactly 20 years ago, I wrote an article for Scientific American that, in draft form, had the headline above. My editor nixed it, so we went with something less dramatic: "In the Beginning…: Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and—most important—how life first emerged on the earth."

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

The point is, if you claim life had to start then it's incumbent on you to show that life had to start. I don't make that claim. I say life is necessary and has always existed. So I don't need a convoluted explanation of how non life magically became life.

If you support abiogenesis then you have to explain it not me.

First, you have to define life. I think the Bible explains this well and shows why life has always existed and the universe itself couldn't exist without Light. The Bible says:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

This is very profound. This light isn't the light from the sun. This light is God. This light is Christ. The Bible tells us that God is Light.

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.

Here's more:

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Matthew 17:2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

So life is the Light. It pervades and sustains all things. This is why Scientist are asking is the universe conscious or is the cosmic web of the universe like a human brain.

Human Brain’s Neuronal Network Has Similarities to Cosmic Web, Study Claims

www.sci-news.com...

Is Consciousness a Fundamental Quality of the Universe?

www.sci-news.com...

THE UNIVERSE IS LIKE A GIANT HUMAN BRAIN, SCIENTISTS FIND

www.independent.co.uk...

Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?

www.scientificamerican.com...



It makes sense that Scientist would ask these questions, it's because Light brings order to the chaos. This Light is Life!

a reply to: neoholographic

Right up to the point where "you have to define life" and then you defaulted to doctrine instead of actual biological requisites. None of what you said is relevant to biochemical processes or phosphine discoveries. Once again you hijack the credibility of honest science. SMH

originally posted by: TerraLiga
I'm familiar with the OT but I can't recall anything in it that says your god put life anywhere else but Earth, so please quote some passages that I may have missed or misinterpreted.

If there is life anywhere else other than Earth it 'destroys' your religion, not science.

Incidentally, why use such incendiary verbs like 'destroy'? How about something like 'disprove'? You are such an angry and violent writer - every one of your posts are like this. Get a grip buddy, this is not a war or competition.

Neo, you didn't answer my question. Any ideas as I'm genuinely interested if I've missed anything.

The most significant difference between science and religion is the division and ownership of knowledge. The religious, but especially the fanatical zealots like yourself, are given knowledge from your god via your bible. You do not need to look elsewhere for the answers to the biggest, and most difficult questions. Your god explains everything in a language that is vague enough not to be called into question about specific events or phenomena, but can be interpreted to suit several independent situations. Your god knows everything. The repercussions of not knowing are immense, which explains why extremists like you will go to great lengths to 'decode' apparent secret messages in your bible and attribute scientific discoveries and natural processes to the vaguest passages and phrases in your book.

Science, on the other hand, will freely admit that it does not know everything. Science has no shame in this admission. It's this pursuit of knowledge that is the ultimate goal of science and humanity as a whole. Science cannot yet explain the abiotic beginnings of life on this planet, neither is there yet a unified theory in physics, among many other questions, but we are looking.

When studying the complexities of what abiogenesis requires to start and sustain living organisms, Genesis has no answers. Creation is not the answer.

a reply to: TerraLiga

There's nowhere in the Bible that says earth is the only place with life. In fact, it says the opposite.

First, Jesus said this:

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

If His Kingdom is not of this world then there's life that's not of this world.

Next, Paul went out of this world to the 3rd Heaven:

2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

The 3rd Heaven has Life not of this world.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

The worlds were framed.

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

From everlasting to everlasting so there's more than one everlasting just like science tells us with infinities within infinities so there can be more than on infinity. They could have discovered this by looking in the Bible.

The Bible tells us there's more than one heaven.

Psalm 68:33 To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice.

Psalm 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

When Jesus ascended he went to God above the Heavens.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Heavens is the Greek word οὐρανῶν which is the plural of οὐρανός.

It doesn't say he ascended above Heaven. It says ALL HEAVENS. So He might fill all things. So there's more than one Heaven just like scientist believe there's more than one dimension. Our space is a heaven. So that would be heaven in the 3rd dimension not the Kingdom of Heaven which is above all heavens(dimensions).

Here's a few examples. Of course there's life outside of earth. You don't think the angels have life? They're not from earth. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Life only exists on earth. You said:

If there is life anywhere else other than Earth it 'destroys' your religion, not science.

No it doesn't because the Bible tells us Life exists outside of earth and why wouldn't it? It's egocentric and small minded to think our planet is the only place where life exists.

You then said this:

Science, on the other hand, will freely admit that it does not know everything. Science has no shame in this admission. It's this pursuit of knowledge that is the ultimate goal of science and humanity as a whole. Science cannot yet explain the abiotic beginnings of life on this planet, neither is there yet a unified theory in physics, among many other questions, but we are looking.

Science can't know everything. A material explanation of things will always be lacking. If you don't look at the metaphysical and the non-physical you will never get a complete picture. Hawking lamented about this because of Godel's Theorems. Godel was a Platonist and his Incompleteness Theorems show that there could never be a theory of everything.

Gödel and the End of Physics -Stephen Hawking

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate. Gödel’s theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

yclept.ucdavis.edu...

Sadly for Hawking, M-Theory hasn't done the same for physics which makes it even more bleak for materialist.

Attempts to connect M-theory to experiment typically focus on compactifying its extra dimensions to construct candidate models of the four-dimensional world, although so far none has been verified to give rise to physics as observed in high-energy physics experiments.

en.wikipedia.org...

String theory (or, more technically, M-theory) is often described as the leading candidate for the theory of everything in our universe. But there's no empirical evidence for it, or for any alternative ideas about how gravity might unify with the rest of the fundamental forces.

www.quantamagazine.org...

Physics can't answer these questions completely but God can. You said:

Any ideas as I'm genuinely interested if I've missed anything.

If this is true, you can DM me if you have any questions about the Bible.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Right up to the point where "you have to define life" and then you defaulted to doctrine instead of actual biological requisites. None of what you said is relevant to biochemical processes or phosphine discoveries. Once again you hijack the credibility of honest science. SMH

Besides blind denial, I don't think I've ever seen you contribute reliable empirical evidence to support any assertion you have ever made. Ironically, You're the same type that persecuted Galileo for defying dogma.

a reply to: neoholographic

All I have ever seen is gossip and scapegoating from the religious ranch of life; a parrot is all those are.

John is a gossip only people that would or could trust what he was saying would believe the nonsense coming out of his mouth.

If Jesus wanted those people to know what he said? He would have told them himself.

Personally, I think the universe if seeded with the building blocks that can form life. Like a billion different puzzle pieces, most we wouldn't recognize because our earthly environment doesn't allow them to survive. But, whatever the environment, enough of the peices exist and join together and life sprouts, evolves, and become self conscious. Of course, I am a tad bit odd and think that our planet is a conscious living being as well as all celestial bodies and they play a part in putting the puzzle pieces together in their domain. Life begins, life evolves, life becomes sentient, and, that cycle of life can end, just to have a new cycle begin with maybe some new building blocks arranged in different ways producing totally different types of lifeforms. Ever notice that the story told in the bible ends at the beginning? A new heaven, and a new earth, a new cycle.. same rock floating in space, just resurrected and ready to start working on a new puzzle.

a reply to: dawnstar
A fish tank is a good mirror of how space etc. works.

a reply to: neoholographic

First, Jesus said this:

Anything that Jesus said was THOUSANDS of (Biblical) years after the events of Genesis.

Jesus spoke in parables and in spiritual terms.

Heavens (however many of them you want to count) seemingly existed before the events of Genesis and there seemingly existed 'beings' in those heavenly realms. But since, according to the Bible, God 'created' life, apparently for the first time since he needed quite a bit of practice, those existent 'beings' from other realms were not 'life' - certainly not biological life.

Jesus wasn't talking about biologic life existing in other places in the physical universe, he was talking about the spiritual realm.

a reply to: rnaa

What?

Did you even read the post I was responding to? It said:

If there is life anywhere else other than Earth it 'destroys' your religion, not science.

Not biological life, life.

Also, that makes zero difference. Life biological or spiritual comes from God:

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

a reply to: neoholographic

The Essene Book of Creation

LINK

I don't know if this is referring to an actual manuscript written by the Essenes of a new age thing but I found it worthy of considering.

Our bible has:
In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth..

While the Essene Book of Creation has:

Without beginning the law creates thought and life.

There was no beginning, creation has been occurring always. There is no god, god is a creation of man. There is a law that governs all things, the universe and life. The law creates thought and life. Each were referred to seas. A sea of thought and a sea of living matter. The matter didn't have to have life on it, but rather all matter had the potential of life once the right elements were introduced.

It is an interesting video.

a reply to: neoholographic

I was skeptical about life on Venus due to the extreme heat (like up to 900F). Then I thought about life in our deep oceans who live next to hydrothermal vents with heat up to 700F. But there is a major difference between Earth's deepest oceans and the surface of Venus. Hell, the Soviet Union sent a spacecraft to Venus and it survived the tremendous heat and pressure for about 30 minutes or so before it malfunctioned. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is 95 bars which is equivalent to 1 mile under our oceans -- or 2,500 pounds of pressure per square inch.

But, life as we do not understand it ***could*** live on the surface of Venus but I am very skeptical of it! I would like to be proven wrong and I might -- I hope am wrong!

a reply to: neoholographic

Did you even read the post I was responding to?

Yes I did. You were citing the words of Jesus as evidence of life in places other than earth.

Jesus words are silent on that topic, though he would have been familiar with the Pentateuch.

According to the Pentateuch there was no life before the events identified in Genesis. And nowhere in the Bible is life other than Earth mentioned. Heaven is a place you can aspire to go to AFTER death, (i.e. when you are no longer life) - Heaven is NOT a place for life.

Life is explicitly part of the material universe. Heaven is not of the material universe.