Will we ever find life on other planets?

Originally Posted by squall24

Sorry if I find that a baseless arguement, as I can just turn around to you and say the church has never found any information that God created it. Still though, God would not make imperfections in the code like there are.

Just because the human mind can't comprehend it doesn't mean it can't happen. This is the only reason why religions were invented. At one time lighting was the work of Zeus, we know different now. Give science a chance to grow more, you'll be shocked at the stuff we'll find out in the future.

The point was, you claimed in your previous post that DNA formed on it's own. What I said was, how can you make that claim when we have never seen information create itself in nature?

I hope I made things clearer for you.

But it didn't make itself overnight. The process of evolution takes millions of years, and I'm sure the code has changed a lot during that period of time. You'll have to excuse me as I haven't studied DNA/RNA in a little while. I'm sure someone like GDwarf would be able to explain these things a lot better.

Originally Posted by gerudoman

So, if I put a bunch of wood on the ground, and all the right tools, will it turn into a log cabin?

Hooray, a fallacy! Wooden logs do not have a natural affinity for each other, they do not reproduce, they do not mutate and they are not subject to selective pressure driving them towards becoming a log cabin. For these four reasons, among others, your argument is void.

Same with DNA. DNA is an intricate code, and a map to our design. You can't tell me that DNA just came out of nowhere. I've never seen an intricate code form in nature. DNA came from a creator.

If you see a log cabin in the forest, you know that man built it. And since we have never seen an intricate code form in nature, the most logical explanation is that DNA came from a creator.

Congratulations, that's the single most illogical thing I've read in a week. So here's your argument:

1. We have a code, DNA.
2. You assume it must have been intelligently designed.
3. Therefore it isn't natural.
4. Therefore it must have been intelligently designed.

Seriously? Seriously? Do I even need to point out how much that argument doesn't work?

Originally Posted by Project 2501

Those who deride evolution as a "theory" misinterpret the scientific usage of the term. From a scientific standpoint, gravity is a theory, as is relativity. They are also facts, because there exists a myriad of experimental data backing them up.

Right.

Fact = Something that happened.
Theory = How and why it happened.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

Hooray, a fallacy! Wooden logs do not have a natural affinity for each other, they do not reproduce, they do not mutate and they are not subject to selective pressure driving them towards becoming a log cabin. For these four reasons, among others, your argument is void.



Congratulations, that's the single most illogical thing I've read in a week. So here's your argument:

1. We have a code, DNA.
2. You assume it must have been intelligently designed.
3. Therefore it isn't natural.
4. Therefore it must have been intelligently designed.


Seriously? Seriously? Do I even need to point out how much that argument doesn't work?

Then explain why it doesn't work, rather then telling otherwise and not providing and explanation. I can't reason with you when you don't tell me why.

Originally Posted by gerudoman

So, if I put a bunch of wood on the ground, and all the right tools, will it turn into a log cabin?

Not without an intelligent mind behind it.

Well, it's not impossible that it could do so, but that's a false analogy.

If logs would combine with other logs, on touch, to form walls etc, and if they could move around and reproduce, then yeah, you'd end up with a whole city of log cabins reasonably quickly, each unique.

Same with DNA. DNA is an intricate code, and a map to our design. You can't tell me that DNA just came out of nowhere. I've never seen an intricate code form in nature. DNA came from a creator.

You've never seen a molecule? Never seen a snowflake? Never seen a tree? Never seen a rock?

Nature is full of "information" being created all the time.

In addition, DNA didn't appear "out of nowhere", it evolved from self-replicating molecules.

Originally Posted by gerudoman

And what do you base that off of? Scientists have never found information to create itself naturally. It can't happen.

Define information, then.


That sounds stupid, but I always have to bring this up: What do you consider information? Define it exactly. Give me a test I can put something through to decide if it is information or not.

Often creationists say throw the word "information" about without actually knowing what it means, so they change the definition every time a counter-example is given.

So, how can you assume that DNA created itself?

I don't. I "assume" it evolved.

Originally Posted by gerudoman

Then explain why it doesn't work, rather then telling otherwise and not providing and explanation. I can't reason with you when you don't tell me why.

Because you said "and since we have never seen an intricate code form in nature, the most logical explanation is that DNA came from a creator", yet the fact is, DNA may be an intricate code that has formed in nature, but you're just ignoring it and pretending it isn't there for the sake of your argument.

You can't just assume that it wasn't formed by nature then declare that as being true and try to derive things from it.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Well, it's not impossible that it could do so, but that's a false analogy.

If logs would combine with other logs, on touch, to form walls etc, and if they could move around and reproduce, then yeah, you'd end up with a whole city of log cabins reasonably quickly, each unique.


You've never seen a molecule? Never seen a snowflake? Never seen a tree? Never seen a rock?

Nature is full of "information" being created all the time.

In addition, DNA didn't appear "out of nowhere", it evolved from self-replicating molecules.


Define information, then.


That sounds stupid, but I always have to bring this up: What do you consider information? Define it exactly. Give me a test I can put something through to decide if it is information or not.

Often creationists say throw the word "information" about without actually knowing what it means, so they change the definition every time a counter-example is given.


I don't. I "assume" it evolved.

First of all, I don't know how to split up quotes, so sorry if my post seems disorganized.

-Yes, I agree, it was false analogy.

-When I talk about information, I'm talking about a code. Our DNA is a code. I've never seen a code create itself naturally, and it hasn't been documented either.

-("In addition, DNA didn't appear "out of nowhere", it evolved from self-replicating molecules.") How can scientists assume this? We have no proof of this. We try to create life in labs, but it never works. There is no evidence whatsoever. But, it's wrong for Christians to assume there is a God......

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

Because you said "and since we have never seen an intricate code form in nature, the most logical explanation is that DNA came from a creator", yet the fact is, DNA may be an intricate code that has formed in nature, but you're just ignoring it and pretending it isn't there for the sake of your argument.

You can't just assume that it wasn't formed by nature then declare that as being true and try to derive things from it.

I'm just going by what has been documented thus far.

Have we seen codes create themselves in nature? No.

Have we seen codes created by intelligent minds. Yes.

So, according to science, there is more of a chance that DNA was created by an intelligent mind.

Well, what is a code, then?

I could, conceivably, store information using crystals. Does that make them a code?


Oh, and to split up quotes you do this:

[*quote=person]texthere[*/quote]
comment
[*quote]moretexthere[*/quote]
etc.

It has been hypothesized that life may exist under the icy surface of Europa, Jupiter's smallest Galilean moon, similar to how life exists at the bottom of the Earth's oceans near hypothermal vents, or at the bottom of Lake Vostok, Alaska.

If other life exists inside our very Solar System, the universe must be absolutely teeming with it. Whether any of it is intelligent or not, is another story. We are intelligent because we have evolved to this point. It is probable that most life out there does not exist in an environment that can ever become suitable enough to allow life to flourish to the point where it can become anything more than simple organisms. That said, to believe that we are the only intelligent life out there is ludicrous. It's just very doubtful that we will ever encounter it, or that it will ever encounter us, before the human race ceases to exist.


As for all of you who believe that we will be contacted by extraterrestials, please consider the following. The only way they could find us is either by looking at Earth through a telescope, or by recieving some of our radio and television broadcasts. The problem with this is that we have only been broadcasting in FM since 1935 - that's only 73 years. Before that, modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) have been around for only 200,000 years. Even if the extraterrestrials were searching by telescope and not by radio frequency (a highly inefficient method), they could only be a maximum of ~200,000 light years away if they were to detect us. To put things into perspective, the Andromeda Galaxy, the galaxy closest to us, is the 2.5 million light years away. Any extraterrestrial life that would find us would have to have originated from right here inside the Milky Way Galaxy.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Well, what is a code, then?

I could, conceivably, store information using crystals. Does that make them a code?


Oh, and to split up quotes you do this:

[*quote=person]texthere[*/quote]
comment
[*quote]moretexthere[*/quote]
etc.

A code is a set of laws that tells a system how to function. It is a langauge. Our DNA is a code. It is a map to everything about an organism. Our DNA is the Bible to every organism.

Now, my question is, how did that code suddenly appear within the very first organism on Earth?

Originally Posted by gerudoman

Have we seen codes create themselves in nature? No.

That's my point, you're using circular logic.

We have a code a in nature, DNA.

You're assuming that it isn't natural, then saying therefore there are no natural codes, therefore it must have been intelligently designed. It just doesn't follow.

Originally Posted by gerudoman

A code is a set of laws that tells a system how to function. It is a langauge. Our DNA is a code. It is a map to everything about an organism. Our DNA is the Bible to every organism.

Now, my question is, how did that code suddenly appear within the very first organism on Earth?

It didn't.


The first proto-life was a molecule that would chemically react with it's surroundings to make imperfect copies of itself.

Because these copies were imperfect they were either better or worse at making copies of themselves than the original.

The ones that were better would "win" against the ones that were worse.

This keeps continuing, until you, through chance, get two replicating molecules that can join together (again, through a chemical reaction.) Lets say one of them forms an outer barrier while the others react with the materials they come into contact with or something.

You now have a basic proto-cell-thing.

Eventually these keep diversifying, until the molecules in the centre become an RNA-like molecule that influences the development of all the others (this makes sense, if it's the part that's reacting then it would have to influence the reaction.)

This keeps up, with each generation being different from the previous one, until you end up with DNA.



Edit: I should note: This is the ur-example of a rough approximation. I'm well outside my expertise here, and I'm simplifying the little I know, so I probably have a step or two wrong somehow, or out of order, or whatever.

However, that doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly viable for DNA to evolve.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

It didn't.


The first proto-life was a molecule that would chemically react with it's surroundings to make imperfect copies of itself.

Because these copies were imperfect they were either better or worse at making copies of themselves than the original.

The ones that were better would "win" against the ones that were worse.

This keeps continuing, until you, through chance, get two replicating molecules that can join together (again, through a chemical reaction.) Lets say one of them forms an outer barrier while the others react with the materials they come into contact with or something.

You now have a basic proto-cell-thing.

Eventually these keep diversifying, until the molecules in the centre become an RNA-like molecule that influences the development of all the others (this makes sense, if it's the part that's reacting then it would have to influence the reaction.)

This keeps up, with each generation being different from the previous one, until you end up with DNA.



Edit: I should note: This is the ur-example of a rough approximation. I'm well outside my expertise here, and I'm simplifying the little I know, so I probably have a step or two wrong somehow, or out of order, or whatever.

However, that doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly viable for DNA to evolve.

RNA is a code too. And there is no proof or documentation of this ever happening.

Originally Posted by T-Nemesis

That's my point, you're using circular logic.

We have a code a in nature, DNA.

You're assuming that it isn't natural, then saying therefore there are no natural codes, therefore it must have been intelligently designed. It just doesn't follow.

Yes, but according to science, you can't assume anything. That also means, according to science, both views are wrong. (According to religion, I do believe we were created.)

Originally Posted by gerudoman

RNA is a code too. And there is no proof or documentation of this ever happening.

Notice how I mentioned the evolution of RNA from basic self-replicating molecules also?

Yes, but according to science, you can't assume anything. That also means, according to science, both views are wrong. (According to religion, I do believe we were created.)

Er, you're misapplying that.

Science favours the simplest theory that explains all the evidence.

Wow, looks like I jumped into this at the wrong moment. I thought we were having a discussion about life on other planets here, and I guess in all the confusion I made a post that actually contributed to the original topic. My bad.