Most Planets May Be Seeded With Life

reply to post by Canadianduder


The article stated they found a building block of RNA, not RNA itself...

and yes... they can detect such things that far away using a nifty aspect of science called radio spectrography.

They can break down radiation signatures (light too if we can get a visual image of the region in question) into a spectrum... each element has its own spectrography "signature".

They then compare the spectrography results against known results from lab experements here on earth.

Your research must have REALLY been lacking if this didn't appear in your "research" you claimed to have conducted earlier...

Just because you don't know how its done, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You're just making yourself look pretty silly here...

We're still waiting for those copy/paste jobs on the articles that you have access too... (remember you read them, so you must have a paid subscription to that site... )

edit: Ah I see you went back and edited your post after the fact. this is really helping your credibility, no?




[edit on 30-11-2008 by nj2day]

reply to post by nj2day


"just because you don't know how its done, doesn't mean it didn't happen"

Do you have any proof to back up your outlandish claims? -No, didn't think so.

The head scientist admits that there only a slim chance that is may be an RNA component - he also admits that they have no way of confirming this with the current technologies.

Admittedly No way of confirming it - hence I am correct.

They cannot see what the misrepresentative article says they saw. the technology admittedly does not exist to make such a confirmation.

It would be nice if the available technology was as sophisticated as to be able to confirm the finding. Unfortunately it is not.

Read the article, wherein this fact is stated by the scientist in charge of the project.

Just read the article, it is all there.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Canadianduder]

reply to post by Canadianduder


Faulty logic here... big time...

You fail to see the first sentence of the article: Astronomers have detected a building block of RNA.

Have detected. When and if they can con firm this... the next article will read "Astronomers have confirmed a building block of RNA"

You state that they found RNA... this is inaccurate... they have detected a building block of RNA...

Then you go on to state that since they admit they can't confirm their findings, that you are correct...

another fallacy on your part, since they did not claim to have confirmation...

They have claimed to have detected a building block of RNA...

Maybe you should read the article...

reply to post by nj2day


Thank you for finally conceding that I was right all along.

It took you awhile to come around, but you have finally decided that you were wrong and owned up to it. That was big of you.

Now that you realize that article grossly misrepresented the science, perhaps you will also issue an apology.



[edit on 30-11-2008 by Canadianduder]

reply to post by Canadianduder


I have not conceded that you are right.

You are misstating and misquoting the article to try and make a noise...

The article is not "misleading". Well, it might be if you have no idea how the scientific method works...

Shouldn't you be in church?

reply to post by nj2day


"Shouldn't you be in church?"

Why are you saying this?

Do you think I am not an athiest?

reply to post by Canadianduder


well, you very well could be...

However the fact that you are representing this, by your first post, that they looked into the center of a star... when the article clearly states otherwise, and then you change the wording again to aide in further refutations, I can draw only two conclusions:

Your a religious person, and this information, if proven accurate, will be extremely hard to reconcile with your beliefs about the creation of life...

Or 2) You are the worst kind of Atheist that seeks to argue at all costs... and use tactics mostly employed by religious believes in the process...

Being an Atheist myself, I would rather believe the former instead of the latter... as your candor and aggressive tactics actually damage our movement further.

Call it wishful thinking.

reply to post by nj2day


Please don't accuse me of back-editing.

You may have been slightly confused by my posts, and I do edit for spelling.

I cannot help you with that and please refrain from lying about me.

Just finish conceding defeat and apologize.

You have already admitted that I was correct all along.

Now you are arguing semantics - I'm sorry but I cannot indulge you anymore, your tactics are too troll-like for me to continue.

*I accept your apology in advance.

Originally posted by Canadianduder
reply to post by nj2day

 

Please don't accuse me of back-editing.

You may have been slightly confused by my posts, and I do edit for spelling.

yah, two times in one thread must be painful (or maybe there's something to it)... However in case you don't realize this... people here DO copy/paste threads they are discussing in Notebook... however, as I am sure your tenure here at ATS will be relatively short... I'll go ahead leave this one alone... Consider it a "gift"

Just finish conceding defeat and apologize.

Nope. You used false statements to decry the article. Not I... I instead stated that your debasement has absolutely no validity... a point which you have yet to refute.

You have already admitted that I was correct all along.

I have done nothing of the sort... You state "This is the stupidest load I've ever heard... Now NASA can "see" into the center of other suns? We can't even see into the center of our own. "

I have maintained that this position is incorrect. Then you go on to argue "they could not see what they said they saw" Which was then proven incorrect...

THEN you go on to state "I've researched this study and concluded that it is a load of sensationalised nonsense." Which we went on to find out you had not done when you state "As a source, you may as well include this thread as I have thus far ONLY acquired all my information from it"

Then you insist they are claiming to have found RNA... as stated here "Do you honestly believe that something a small as RNA could be seen from light years away? " Which I then showed you were incorrect...

Now you are arguing semantics - I'm sorry but I cannot indulge you anymore, your tactics are too troll-like for me to continue.

No, there are big differences between star forming regions/interiors of stars and RNA/Amino acids... this is not semantics...

*I accept your apology in advance.

Quite generous considering I will not give it to you... You have been proven incorrect or inaccurate at every turn in this thread... yet somehow you can turn around and declare victory?

edit: syntax


[edit on 30-11-2008 by nj2day]

reply to post by nj2day


"However in case you don't realize this... people here DO copy/paste threads they are discussing in Notebook... however, as I am sure your tenure here at ATS will be relatively short... I'll go ahead leave this one alone... Consider it a "gift""

Such actions are considered copyright infringement and are a direct violation of the terms and conditions of this website.

I sincerely hope you don't violate the agreement we all made. I hope you are joking about breaking the rules of this site. Hahah right?

Edit: I see you gone and back-edited your posts removing your confession and admission of guilt and replacing it with "edit: syntax"

How clever

Now can we get back on topic - are you done?

Edit: don't reply your on ignore.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Canadianduder]

reply to post by Canadianduder


This is not copywrite infringement, as I have not violated the Creative Commons deed, and have not published anything...

I am also free to repost any post on ATS anywhere on the internet, as long as I provide links back to the original post, credit the author, and am not using it in a commercial manner...

Read the T&C, and the Creative Commons spiel...

However at this point in time I have determined that you are nothing more than a troll, seeking attention or to divert away from the original topic...

Have a nice time at ATS...

The nice thing is, the ignore button blocks all posts coming from your IP regardless of username... a nifty little feature... (Thanks SkepticOverlord!)

*** ATTENTION ***

THis bickering will stop.

Any further off-topic, bickering, uncivil posts will be deleted and the member warned, possibly post banned.

The article stated they found a building block of RNA, not RNA itself...

reply to post by nj2day


I think you are right and that they used radio or photo spectroscopy. Do you have any info about the radio spectroscopy and how this could have been used in analysis? I didn't find much.

For any of you that doubt that they could identify a molecule from light years away, the answer is that they can but it is more a prevalence of a type of molecule at a precise location in a planet, cloud, etc. Our instruments aren't very sensitive yet but we can be sure that the equipment and measurements will be better.

Here's very handy use for this technology far in the future" You are on Enterprise 10 returning home to our solar system. You aren't sure which of the numerous planets you see is Earth till you point your spectroscopic analyser and read the precise molecular signature of our planet's atmosphere which could not be confused with that of Mars, Venus or Mercury. You breath a sigh of relief knowing you are headed home!

reply to post by plumranch


Here's a site intended to put it in layman's terms...

It explains a bunch of forms of spectroscopy

happy reading!



[edit on 1-12-2008 by nj2day]

Forgive me for completely jumping from what seems to be the current topic, but I'd like to throw in my two cents on the matter of extra-terrestrial life.
Allow me to begin by simply saying that it is sheer idiocy to believe that we live on the only planet capable of supporting life; ergo, it is idiocy to assume that we are the only intelligent life, the most advanced life, etc.
One form of scientific idiocy which most often goes unnoticed, since it is admittedly theoretical with no proven factual basis, is that all of our biological studies and means of defining life are based on the assumption that all life is carbon-based. Granted, our knowledge is built upon the foundation of experience, but only a man who thinks himself God would believe that he knows something beyond his experience; science seeks to grow based on knowledge, hence it is limited to grow only within the parameters of basic principles which cannot (at least currently) be disproven. Though theories cannot, by definition, be proven true, science limits its pursuits to gleaning evidence to support the most fail-proof and thusly mundane theories. This can easily be attributed to mankind's forementioned ego; we do not enjoy being wrong.
Were science able to gain humility and perhaps take a few chances by pursuing new experiences, by sheer probability new knowledge would be gained. The problem then becomes where to start; knowledge being based on experience, and having never experienced (for example) a nitrogen-based organism, how can one scientifically go about looking for such an organism, let alone proving its existence?
The simple fact becomes that, given the scale of what is known versus what is not, we may very well be an evolved form a virus which has infected a single organelle of one cell within a "macrocosmic" life-form. This is, of course, assuming that a pathogen is not aware of its impotent size; that, too, is unknown.
The rub of the matter is that given the scope of infinite possibilties paired with absolute probabilities, there is life elsewhere; the sad fact is that, in all probabilty, we will never actually know.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Malfeitor]

reply to post by _Phoenix_

To Phoenix
I believe you are near to the truth as there must be replication of entities "out there" simply because the whole universal continuum is in actuality the mind of God. He thought us and everything up from his singularity and now all exists within His mind. We eventually will travel with everything in the galactic neurons of God's mind; we are in part doing so now as we move with the solar system around the Milky Way galaxy.
So you see what we perceive as our reality is in actuality part of God's brain - not simply what we can see and calculate but all that exists through the whole whole continuum of multiuniverses.
Good Luck on your journey.
From George Lancaster.

Originally posted by Malfeitor

Allow me to begin by simply saying that it is sheer idiocy to believe that we live on the only planet capable of supporting life; ergo, it is idiocy to assume that we are the only intelligent life, the most advanced life, etc.

Prabability dictates that it actually would make LESS sense for us to be the only life in the universe

One form of scientific idiocy which most often goes unnoticed, since it is admittedly theoretical with no proven factual basis, is that all of our biological studies and means of defining life are based on the assumption that all life is carbon-based.

wahoo! I've said that for years and people look at me cross eyed...

Say there was a such thing as Hydrogen based life... which would make sense, since hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe...

How would we go about looking for it?

How could we possibly know if we'd found it..

Would we know it if it was standing next to us?

however I do disagree with your evaluation of science.... Scientists enjoy being proven wrong... While a major theory being disproven might shake the scientific community up a bit, it opens the door for even more findings, as other theories get modified to adjust for the change...

While an individual might be less than thrilled by being proven wrong... I think the scientific community as a whole rather actively seeks it..

Originally posted by nj2day
Scientists enjoy being proven wrong... While a major theory being disproven might shake the scientific community up a bit, it opens the door for even more findings, as other theories get modified to adjust for the change...

While an individual might be less than thrilled by being proven wrong... I think the scientific community as a whole rather actively seeks it..

I'm not saying that scientists don't believe they're impartial to failure or success, but there are facts which are hard to deny; in order to conduct a proper scientific experiment, one usually requires years of training and education, a controlled environment, thousands of dollars worth of equipment to ensure the purity of results/effectivness of the experiment, and to aqcuire said equipement, funding from a business, the government, or a university. To lack any one of these things severely limits the scientists ability to see his work to fruition, and if there is not an applicable result, or a practical use for the findings, the project is usually terminated. Hence most scientists stick to the basics for which there is proper funding and a bright future.
Were a scientist with what I would deem "pure motives" to find himself in a position to do a proper experiment regarding new experiences, as in alien life, new energy types, etc, to make a single mistake or simply take too long in his research, the project would go belly-up, so to speak; I sincerely believe this is the biggest reason why we have more questions than answers regarding many of the things worth knowing. Most scientists simply won't risk their lifetime of hopes, dreams, and work to chase something which will, in all probability, destroy their careers.
Though it may seem ludicrous, in the end, I think, truly novel discoveries lay purely in luck. Truly, knowing the odds against such a thing (having considered my previous post as well as this one), only by an anomaly of probability could a new experience be gained.
I am glad, though, that I'm not alone in my belief that life may have more basis than carbon. Given the flawed and fragile nature of carbon-based life, it only seems inevitable for other types of life to have formed. Funnily enough, now that I think about it, they're probably just as ignorant to our existence as we are to theirs.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Malfeitor]

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Malfeitor]