Bio-life as a bootloader for AI to explain the Fermi paradox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: whereislogic

Realy and despite the exoplanet discoveries, organic molecules found to exist space, extremophiles that live on Earth and Astrobiology research which seem to indicate life is not as special as you seem to think.

Let's also be clear as to what you are really implying with the bolded phrase. That these things 'seem to indicate that the machinery of life is the product of chance and natural forces or processes', 'the product of nature' ('nature did it'). I know you want to avoid making that claim, cause it's nonsense that goes against everything we know about nature and natural forces, which have the opposite effect, as discussed before.

And it makes it a little harder to talk past Alexandre Meinesz admission in 2008 that over the last 50 years (now 66), “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life . . . from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (of course as quoted before, he only made the admission including the phrasing of "on earth" that I left out now, cause what he says regarding the chemistry on earth, counts just as much for the chemistry in space, not that we have conducted origin of life experiments in space, but you've got even bigger hurdles to overcome in space for the notion that the machinery of life emerged by chance and natural processes exclusively, so the panspermia idea is not gonna solve a question that was already solved centuries ago by the argument of induction and conclusion by induction concerning creation, or engineering to be more specific; as I phrased it before when presenting the 2 relevant and well-established and observed facts about machinery, and where machinery comes from, what causes machinery to emerge, which we all know quite well, it's just a matter of admitting it now and being honest about it with ourselves, and not follow Greenstein's and Hoyle's example as quoted in the article about fraud in science).

In case someone didn't get it, Meinesz' admission (leaving out what I left out) blows the earlier implication entirely out of the water. It is time for more people to recognize the truth/certainty of what Meinesz is acknowledging there (acknowledge: "accept or admit the existence or truth of." Definition from Oxford Languages via google). We've got no proper evidence whatsoever that 'nature did it' (concerning the origin of life). Everything we do know about nature and have discovered about the machinery and technology that makes up life, points in the other direction (the general conclusion by induction that I presented, that life is the product of engineering, not nature or natural forces or processes and/or chance).

Any proper counter argument has to be based on inductive reasoning. Cause Newton didn't warn for nothing about the use of hypotheses (and now also wishful thinking and bogus claims based on pure fantasy) to evade the argument of induction. There is nothing in "Astrobiology research which seem to indicate life is" the product of chance and natural processes exclusively, or the product of nature if you want to keep it shorter.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: setemkamaat

This universe may very well be a simulation so you might not be far off the mark.

Sigh, :facepalm, speculation rules supreme in mythology and philosophy. (that's a play on Wolfgang Capito's “Let the Bible and the law of Christ always rule supreme in theology.”)

A simulation of what? (simulation: "imitation of a situation or process." Definition from Oxford Language via Google)

originally posted by: Dalamax
Or biological sentience may be the result of artificial sentience.

More baseless speculation. And a bit vague. Vagueness also rules supreme in mythology and philosophy. I guess they share the limelight. Let's call it vague speculation (otherwise I can't use "rules supreme" for 2 things).

What happened to 'following the evidence (eg. the 2 well-established facts I mentioned on the previous page) where it leads'? (by means of inductive reasoning, leading to the conclusion by induction that life is the product of engineering; have we all conveniently forgotten where machinery and technology comes from, what causes it to emerge? I don't think we have, I'm not buying the feigned ignorance of South Park's Agnostic Code, and certainly not the notion that this is the more openminded position on the matter, it's rather closed-minded to the argument of induction and related factual/truthful/certain/conclusive evidence I've been discussing.)

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3
The Fermi Paradox reduced to more human scaling.

The universe is full of planets with life but only for a certain amount of existence each incidence.

Any supporting evidence for this idea/philosophy? Cause coming up with excuses for why there is a complete lack of evidence for this (as pointed out in the so-called "Fermi paradox"), with reasoning that is entirely based on the myth and speculation bolded above, is not a particularly effective or proper means of arguing or reasoning.

Sometimes when there is such a severe and complete lack of evidence for a speculative idea, it's time to drop the idea until someone actually comes up with some proper evidence, rather than excuses in the form of sophisticated or fancy argumentation or reasoning (rhetoric) for why there is no proper evidence (like the modus operandi of paleontologists who tap-dance around the term "missing links", cause they don't like using that term anymore, cause the fossil evidence for the philosophy that is called "macroevolution", the very essence of so-called "biological evolution"*, is still missing as well, i.e. non-existent, cause it never happened that way). *: so-called microevolution isn't evolution, that's just spin, the fact that the descendants of living things may change slightly is not evidence that humans evolved from single-celled ancestors or share a common ancestor with apes, the real dogma of evolutionary philosophies, i.e. evolution, common descent.

As Fermi put it: so "where are they?" These aliens living other planets. The excuse about distances as discussed in my first comment in this thread just isn't gonna cut it. As American physicist Freeman J. Dyson has concluded, if advanced civilizations exist in our galaxy, finding evidence of them should be as easy as finding signs of technological civilization on Manhattan Island in New York City. The galaxy should be buzzing with alien signals and their immense engineering projects. But none have been found. In fact, one article on the subject noted that “searched, found nothing” has become like a religious chant for SETI astronomers.

"Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything.” (Neil deGrasse Tyson)

Or at least pretend that you're doing so like Neil deGrasse Tyson. Who I have not seen questioning the notion of the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" or the notion that "life is inevitable" (given the vastness of the universe and numbers of planets out there and as one writer put it: “The general thinking among biologists is that life will begin whenever it is given an environment where it can begin.” In spite of the fact/reality that those who think that way cannot even explain how life began on this planet). Nor have I seen him 'following the evidence where it leads' (regarding the origin of life and the 2 well-established facts I presented on the previous page). Which does adequately explain how life began on this planet (compare Newton's rule I for experimental philosophy, modern science, experimental science, real science and not pseudoscience, neurotic speculation, philosophy and mythology).

Nice words (from Neil), but empty if you're being a hypocrite about it for financial reasons and other personal gain (usually social):

a reply to: OmegaLogos

I wonder if andy06shake managed to get through this rather lengthy comment (it could 'tickle his ears' 'according to his desires', as per 2 Tim 4:3,4). As for me, I dropped out as soon as I read the term "hypothesis". I think we have enough so-implied "scientific hypotheses"* that nobody has bothered to test for, or even propose a test for to verify if they have any merit in the sciences, printed in so-called "scientific literature" already.

*: According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

What are we doing here, presenting science/knowledge of facts/certainties/realities/truths or are we philosophizing and speculating and then printing it in so-called "scientific" magazines? (making it pseudoscience, just to rake up the number of published articles to boost one's reputation and not fall victim to the phenomenon of 'publish or perish')

What's the business being engaged in here?

Psychology: The Art of selling nonsense/contradictions part 1

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

“Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

I think they’re underground.

We have talk of giants written down in human history. Imagine ancient giant humans living a while ago in an atmosphere that had a higher oxygen conent atmosphere. And the oxygen level was decreasing to todays levels. Imagine they needed a higher oxygen content atmosphere to survive and they wouldn’t get that on the surface, so they built huge living areas underground.

Or aliens cane to earth, atmosphere wasn’t for them, so they built large underground living areas.


The surface can be deadly due to a whole bunch of reasons, like solar radiation when the earths magnetic poles flip, or solar flares from the sun.

It was just a thought 👍 the odds you have given, are they calculated over a particular timeframe? Or is that just a snapshot of an instant? If they are calculated over a period of time, what kind of timeframe are we talking about here; how old is the universe?

How did life come to be in your opinion?

a reply to: whereislogic

I find your posts in this thread quite interesting, thanks for taking the time to extrapolate.

Giants. 🙂

I like to think the purple dawn of creation existed when earth was part of a string of planets in a polar configuration.

How that would have looked is speculated on by the thunderbolts project and I found their feature length productions quite compelling. Have you watched any of their material?



This one isn’t feature length but it does have giants in it

a reply to: DaRAGE

This one is a little longer but worth watching IMO.

a reply to: Dalamax

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: OmegaLogos

I wonder if andy06shake managed to get through this rather lengthy comment (it could 'tickle his ears' 'according to his desires', as per 2 Tim 4:3,4). As for me, I dropped out as soon as I read the term "hypothesis". I think we have enough so-implied "scientific hypotheses"* that nobody has bothered to test for, or even propose a test for to verify if they have any merit in the sciences, printed in so-called "scientific literature" already.

*: According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

What are we doing here, presenting science/knowledge of facts/certainties/realities/truths or are we philosophizing and speculating and then printing it in so-called "scientific" magazines? (making it pseudoscience, just to rake up the number of published articles to boost one's reputation and not fall victim to the phenomenon of 'publish or perish')

What's the business being engaged in here?

Psychology: The Art of selling nonsense/contradictions part 1

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

“Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

What's your explanation for the fermi paradox?

a reply to: whereislogic

A number of scientists are beginning to realize that their colleagues have made far too many optimistic assumptions in addressing this question. Such scientists come up with a much lower number of advanced civilizations in our galaxy. Some have said that there is but one​—us. Others have said that mathematically, there should be fewer than one​—even we shouldn’t be here!

The basis for their skepticism is not hard to see. It could be summed up with two questions: If such extraterrestrials existed, where would they live? And how did they get there?

‘Why, they would live on planets,’ some might reply to the first question. But there is only one planet in our solar system that is not downright hostile to life, the one we occupy. But what about the planets circling the thousands of millions of other stars in our galaxy? Might not some of them harbor life? The fact is that up to now scientists have not conclusively proved the existence of a single planet outside of our solar system (although they often claim that they have, but it's based on indirect evidence, not conclusive evidence, more on that later). Why not?

Because to detect one is exceedingly difficult. Since stars are so distant and planets do not emit any light of themselves, detecting even a giant planet, such as Jupiter, is like trying to spot a speck of dust floating around a powerful light bulb miles away.

Even if such planets do exist​—and some indirect evidence has accumulated to indicate that they do—​this still does not mean that they orbit precisely the right kind of star in the right galactic neighborhood, at precisely the right distance from the star, and are themselves of precisely the right size and composition to sustain life. (in spite of all the claims concerning supposedly "potential[ly] habitable worlds")

A Crumbling Foundation

Yet, even if many planets do exist that meet the stringent conditions necessary to sustain life as we know it, the question remains, How would life arise on those worlds? This brings us to the very foundation of the belief in beings on other worlds​—evolution.

To many scientists, it seems logical to believe that if life could evolve from nonliving matter on this planet, that could be true on others as well. As one writer put it: “The general thinking among biologists is that life will begin whenever it is given an environment where it can begin.” But that is where evolution faces an insurmountable objection. Evolutionists cannot even explain how life began on this planet.

All of this ☝️ to say, the fermi paradox can be answered with the proclamation or hypothesis that "life hasn't been found among the stars because the agency responsible for life as we know it has been here the whole time and never went anywhere else".

Is that the gist of your dissertation?

originally posted by: Dalamax
It was just a thought 👍 the odds you have given, are they calculated over a particular timeframe? Or is that just a snapshot of an instant? If they are calculated over a period of time, what kind of timeframe are we talking about here; how old is the universe?

Looks like you've missed the point. I suggest you pay closer attention to the bolded quotations and not the odds given by evolututionists or people that refuse to spell out the word "impossible" regarding the idea that life is the product of chance and natural forces or processes exclusively, represented by the only (odds) number I personally gave, 0 (at which point you can have an infinite amount of time, an infinite universe or number of universes as in the multiverse idea, or an infinite amount of events, and still will not get this event, the emergence of life, happening by chance and natural processes exclusively; basic math: multiply 0 with any given number or even infinity, you still end up with 0, i.e. it's never gonna happen that way, i.e. with those causal factors or causes).

How did life come to be in your opinion?

Looks like you've missed the answer to that question as well. Which I somewhat doubt (unless you actually haven't read the comment in which the answer to that question was given), cause it's not merely or just my opinion, it's the only possible and rational conclusion by induction that you possibly do not want to touch or consider seriously (if it's the truth of the matter, synonyms for "true" are "absolute/conclusive/certain/factual/correct, without error"), hence possibly the reason why you phrased your question as such. Maybe even to see if I will answer with just the conclusion, leaving out the well-established facts and the value of the logical reasoning* the conclusion is based on, demonstrating what this conclusion is worth in terms of seeking the truth/reality/certainty of the matter (and how this form of reasoning, inductive reasoning, is described by Isaac Newton there and by the Encyclopædia Britannica as: "When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."). Prossibly causing people to look past that if I were to do that.

For that reason, I will simply refer you back to the comment where I quoted Isaac Newton and the Encyclopædia Britannica, as well as presented the 2 well-established and observed facts the conclusion by induction (or as Newton put it, "argument of induction", which should not be "evaded by hypotheses", or unverified philosophies/ideas, or appeals to some form of Agnostic Code, or Vilenkin's notion that "... there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science ...", i.e. the notion that we can't figure this out for certain anyway, hence it's always going to be 'just an opinion' anyway, supposedly) is based on. Along with the encouragement to use some inductive reasoning or common sense of your own, and admit to yourself that the truth/certainty/reality of this matter can be known for certain. Even if that truth/fact/certainty/reality may make one feel a bit uncomfortable, or closedminded because of the promoters of the philosophy of relativism, agnosticism and the notion that believing that we can't know the answer to this specific question for certain anyway ("so it's [supposedly] pointless to talk about", as South Park's Agnostic Code puts it), is the more openminded position (which it isn't, it's about as closedminded to the truth/certainty of this matter as can be, just because some people don't want you to come to this conclusion and/or acknowledge that it's the fact/certainty of the matter*, one person in particular, "the father of the lie", "the ruler of this world", "the god of this system of things" "who is misleading the entire inhabited earth", John 8:44; 12:31; 2Cor 4:4; Rev 12:9).

*: common sense and inductive reasoning tells us as much (if we're willing to use it properly).

Also consider answering the question: where does machinery come from, what causes it to emerge? (what causal process or mechanism) I know the way I phrased it before was more rhetorical, but it'd be great if you addressed that question anyway (just to see if you're willing to acknowledge that well-established and observed fact/certainty/reality/truth; acknowledge means: "accept or admit the existence or truth of." Definition by Oxford Languages as given before). Here's how I brought it up before:

... as I phrased it before when presenting the 2 relevant and well-established and observed facts about machinery, and where machinery comes from, what causes machinery to emerge, which we all know quite well, it's just a matter of admitting it now and being honest about it with ourselves, and not follow Greenstein's and Hoyle's example as quoted in the article about fraud in science).

That was one of the articles discussing the odds of it having happened by chance and natural forces or processes exclusively (without intelligent interference or agency). Hoyle being one of those presenting some figures regarding specific steps in the process from non-life to life, or the chance of some component of life to emerge by chance (such as biologically functional cellular proteins). Ultimately leading to this reaction:

Is Intelligence Involved?

When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”⁠23

Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”⁠24 Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,”⁠25 as Dawkins expressed it. Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life.⁠26 In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?

That's one of those bolded quotations I was referring to at the start of this comment.

Source: Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

Once you realize the chance is actually/factually zero (0), it's actually not that "complex" anymore.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic
...
All of this ☝️ to say, the fermi paradox can be answered with the proclamation or hypothesis that "life hasn't been found among the stars because the agency responsible for life as we know it has been here the whole time and never went anywhere else".

Is that the gist of your dissertation?

Is God Everywhere, Omnipresent? (Bible Questions Answered)

The Bible’s answer

God is able to see everything and to act anywhere he chooses. (Proverbs 15:3; Hebrews 4:13) However, the Bible does not teach that God is omnipresent​—that is, present everywhere, in all things. Instead, it shows that he is a person and that he resides in a dwelling place.

God’s form: God is a spirit person. (John 4:​24) He is invisible to humans. (John 1:​18) Visions of God recorded in the Bible consistently portray him as having a distinct location. He is never depicted as existing everywhere.​—Isaiah 6:​1, 2; Revelation 4:​2, 3, 8.

God’s dwelling place: God resides in the spirit realm, which is distinct from physical creation. Within that realm, God has a “dwelling place in the heavens.” (1 Kings 8:​30) The Bible mentions an occasion when spirit creatures “entered to take their station before Jehovah,”* showing that in a sense, God resides at a specific location.​—Job 1:6. [*: Jehovah is the name of God as revealed in the Bible.]

So no need to spin my comment that way anymore (in case you didn't know before). My comment speaks for itself and I don't do hypotheses.

If you want further elaboration regarding the question in the comment before the one I'm responding to here, I suggest you follow the link in this part of my first comment (which was towards the end):

...

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe observe that “the theory that life was assembled by an intelligence” is “vastly” more probable than spontaneous generation. “Indeed,” they add, “such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-​evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” Yes, many scientists recoil from the idea of a Creator, even though the evidence points that way. In the process, they have created a religion of their own. As the above authors see it, Darwinism simply replaces the word “God” with the word “Nature.”

So in answer to the question, “Is anyone out there?” science clearly gives no grounds for belief in life on other planets. In fact, as the years pass and the silence from the stars continues, SETI is a growing embarrassment to scientists who believe in evolution. If various types of life evolve readily from nonlife, then why do we not hear from them in this vast universe? Where are they? [Fermi's question, or so-called "paradox"]

On the other hand, if the question belongs in the realm of religion, how do we find an answer? Did God create life on other worlds? Extraterrestrials—Finding the Answer (Awake!—1990) (see that article for an answer to that question)

And further elaboration on the question you asked me about Fermi's so-called "paradox" (my position on the matter already being clear in that comment, but if you want more, click the link, even if you don't want to and raised your question for another reason than to find out my position on the matter, to me, it's not a paradox why the evidence for life on other worlds is lacking, it makes complete sense if there is no life on other worlds, in any case, "science clearly gives no grounds for belief in life on other planets", nor does my knowledge/science of the matter; the term "science" before referring to "the sciences", the various fields of science).

In the meantime (cause I suspect you're not all that interested in reading that article), how about you? You know where machinery comes from, what causes it to emerge, don't you? So, is life made up of machinery or not? Are you going to deny the evidence of your own eyes and where it leads to (what logical conclusion by induction it leads to, what fact/certainty/reality/truth one can learn or come to realize from the 2 well-established and observed facts presented by me earlier)?



Get those synapses firing...


Next video in the playlist with a sample of the evidence that the machinery of life (the effect or phenomenon) is the product of engineering (the cause), and the evidence that life is indeed made up of machinery (a fact/reality/truth/certainty; a 'fact of life' as they say):

Protein synthesis (DNA transcription, translation and folding)

I think Michael Behe explains it rather well below (as well as the subject of inductive reasoning starting around 25 minutes in, more exactly concerning inductive reasoning a few minutes after 30:09, those interested should not miss the quote there first):

a reply to: setemkamaat

If this hypothesis is correct, it could help explain the Fermi paradox: perhaps the reason we haven't encountered any other intelligent civilizations is that they have all rapidly transitioned to a purely artificial intelligence-based existence, which may be fundamentally different from biological life and therefore difficult or impossible for us to detect or comprehend.

"I am now telling the computer exactly what it can do with a life time supply of chocolate"

As stated an AI may be so different from our understanding of life that it is reasonable to assume that it has no desire to explore the universe or leave markers of it's existence ... we can not detect it; because their is absolutely nothing to detect.

a reply to: Dandandat3

One really should present the evidence for a particular unverified idea/philosophy rather than excuses for why there is no (proper) evidence, like your average paleontologist talking about the scarcity of fossils as mentioned before (concerning so-called "missing links", a term that has grown out of favor amongst paleontologist cause they don't want people waking up to this "trade secret" as it also has been called by at least one paleontologist; the fossil evidence for so-called "macroevolution" has not been found, because it doesn't exist, macroevolution is a myth, it didnt happen).

Chapter 5: Letting the Fossil Record Speak (Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

...

New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”⁠31 And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”⁠32 “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”⁠33​—Italics added.

...

Chapter 6: Huge Gulfs—Can Evolution Bridge Them?

Chapter 8: Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?

Evolution—Myths and Facts (Was Life Created?)

QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

...

DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN

...

WHAT ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD?

Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”32

In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?

...

The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms​—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

PROBLEMS WITH THE “PROOF”

What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.

A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”34* [Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.]

Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” [whereislogic: there's the excuse for why the fossil evidence hasn't been found.] He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”35* [Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evolution.]

WHAT DOES THE “FILM” REALLY SHOW?

...

How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils​—the 95 frames of the movie—​showed that species change very little over time. Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.”37

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117 [whereislogic: this guy is senior editor of Nature magazine as well.]

What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?* [See, for example, the box “What About Human Evolution?”]

...

So what is the chance (even if practically zero) that life would occur in an infinite universe that has been for an infinite period of time?

Sure anything multiplied by 0 is zero, what is anything (besides 0 lol) multiplied by infinity?

I get that your trying to say that machinery must have a creator, truly persuasive attempt

At what level of complexity does consciousness form? Could a single celled organism communicate (and cooperate symbiotically) with it’s neighbours and form more complex organisms?

I read your reply and I am wondering where is the logic

Your creator may not be as complex as you seem to want.

The human genome - the full set of genetic instructions for a human being - is made up of 20,000 instructions called genes.
But add all the genes in our microbiome together and the figure comes out between two and 20 million microbial genes.
Prof Sarkis Mazmanian, a microbiologist from Caltech, argues: "We don't have just one genome, the genes of our microbiome present essentially a second genome which augment the activity of our own.

www.bbc.com...

reply to: whereislogic

This began as a double post, may as well put it to use 🙂

You could try beginning a post with your point and then construct your argument and provide your proofs, it may alleviate the confusion you believe your engendering.

You know, construct a post logically.

What are you insinuating I am uncomfortable about? The origins of life isn’t something that makes me uncomfortable

try to answer directly without the multiple word strings of synonyms, I have my own dictionary and if I couldn’t be arsed turning pages I can select the word and press the ‘look up’ function.

I get that your implying I’m an idiot, I’m fine with that, to be honest I get concerned when I feel I’m the smartest person in the room 😂🤣

a reply to: Dalamax

I did not insinuate that you are uncomfortable about the origin of life, nor did I imply that you're an idiot. Not wanting to seriously consider the only available rational conclusion by induction based on the well-established facts (the evidence) at hand, does not have to mean that you don't want to because you're uncomfortable with the subject of the origin of life. There's another main reason you don't want to apply inductive reasoning in the proper manner and accept or acknowledge where the evidence leads. It's the same reason you spin my comments to make it appear it says or insinuates or implies something else than what I actually presented.

Similarly, pointing out that you missed the point and are talking past it (which could be a deliberate act of pretending, but regardless of that), does not mean I implied that you were an idiot. Obviously, if you keep reading something in my commentary that isn''t there, in order to discredit and distract from the actual things that are in there, I don't feel inclined to answer your further questions. Especially since you didn't answer mine (that's not a productive conversation). Even though it's rather obvious that you are not an idiot, and you know quite well where machinery comes from, what causes it to emerge. It's just a matter of being willing to admit and acknowledge it ("accept or admit the existence or truth of", as acknowledge is defined by Oxford Languages), being honest about it.

I see no point in conversing with someone unwilling to be honest about this subject, talking past it to paint things on my commentary that aren't there, or to bring up more distracting questions without bothering to answer my question honestly. Cause I know you're not stupid or an idiot and/or suddenly don't remember the facts of the matter (you just don't like admitting what the evidence, the facts, lead to by means of inductive reasoning, and you don't want to acknowledge it, cause you don't want to give it any credence; you'd much rather pretend that this is just my opinion).

Well-established and observed fact #1: life is made up of molecular machinery
Well-established and observed fact #2: machinery is the product of engineering

General conclusion by induction: the machinery that life is made up of (effect/phenomenon) is the product of engineering (cause, or causal mechanism or process) by at least 1 engineer (causal agent).

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopædia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

a reply to: TzarChasm

NASA has just Released a Finding that is Scientifically accurate according to Astronomers that there is an Estimated 40 BILLION Possible Earth Type Planets in our Milky Way Galaxy alone . Considering that , the Laws of Probability Lean Towards Multiple Intelligent Species exsisting " Out There " other than Ourselves .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

It's a matter of spin and speculation. What do they count as an "Earth Type Planet"? There are a lot of factors that sustain life on earth. For example, do these so-called "Earth Type Planets" have an ozone layer to protect potential life from the most harmful radiation from its sun (star), while still letting in enough light and energy (other frequencies of radiation) that life uses for things such as photosynthesis (using light to make oxygen from carbon dioxide)? They hardly know anything about the composition of the atmosphere of extrasolar planets, they can only speculate. And they certainly can't know if it has an ozone layer or not (cause that highly fine-tuned and specialized shield was no accident either).

Like mentioned earlier:

Because to detect one [a planet] is exceedingly difficult. Since stars are so distant and planets do not emit any light of themselves, detecting even a giant planet, such as Jupiter, is like trying to spot a speck of dust floating around a powerful light bulb miles away.

Even if such planets do exist​—and some indirect evidence has accumulated to indicate that they do—​this still does not mean that they orbit precisely the right kind of star in the right galactic neighborhood, at precisely the right distance from the star, and are themselves of precisely the right size and composition to sustain life. (in spite of all the claims concerning supposedly "potential[ly] habitable worlds")

Or claims concerning supposedly "Earth Type Planets". The factors necessary to sustain life mentioned above are just a few. Liquid water is another important one (I guess that counts as part of the right "composition" mentioned above). The presence of liquid water on extrasolar planets is purely based on imagination, and belongs in Sci-Fi entertainment like Star Wars or Star Trek, there is no scientific basis for believing there are planets out there that have liquid water (not even the idea/belief/philosophy that Mars once had liquid water, pure biased speculation, fantasy and wishful thinking; they want to believe it and promote that idea, that's why they come up with arguments and supposed 'evidence' that according to them supports that belief/idea, but it doesn't, I think* they haven't even collected some ice with one of their mars missions yet, yet they talk and speculate about the presence of ice a lot, then why not collect some? Cause I think* in reality they know better and they aren't even really trying to collect some, but probably prefer coming up with excuses why this ice that is supposedly there or was supposedly once there is so hard to reach or collect).

*: Of course, I can't really be sure that''s the situation cause I don't really keep track of everything that NASA is doing or publishing, they're just not that interesting an organization to me (given the things I have read coming from them, they're too biased for my taste, and they use too much spin and speculation in a rather dishonest and deceptive manner, and they market themselves too much, see below for what I mean with that; the organization just doesn't impress me all that much when it comes to advancing the sciences, guess they have some decent engineers, but still overpaid, and these don't write public articles for them). What they are good at though, is catering to the market, 'tickling people's ears' "according to their desires" as described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4. Basically telling people what they want to hear. Such as the example you gave, which was just what you (and others) wanted to hear, cause you want to believe that life exists on other planets, and you want to believe there are lots of habitable extrasolar planets. But wanting it so doesn't make it a reality, what it produces, is biased and misleading arguments in support of that belief, that wishful thinking (cause the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" in their eyes requires a vast pool of habitable planets where chance can do its magic, cause make no mistake, chance, or an accident, producing the machinery and technology that makes up life, is magic, figuratively speaking, it's actually even more far-fetched).

My conclusion, NASA is full of it, talking BS. Promoting ideas that market their organization and make it seem they are worth the funding they are getting (putting the money to good use; in reality, they use that money to enrich themselves, pay out handsome salaries or pay for overpriced products made by other companies so these can make a nice profit* but they're not doing anything particularly useful in terms of making important discoveries or conducting important scientific experiments that allows the sciences to progress, our understanding of nature and what is 'out there' to increase in a particularly significant way, especially when it comes to the question of: is there life on other planets?). *: that is, if they don't hand out all their profits to their employees and their highest ranking staff (CEO's and such) to avoid profit taxes (if these companies aren't already listed in some country that has no or very little profit tax).