Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 4:56 AM
132 online now:
Dredge, Tangle (2 members, 130 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Extraterrestrial Origins Of Life on Earth
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3574 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 16 of 21 (471717)
06-17-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by BeagleBob
06-17-2008 12:34 PM


Re: Biospheres and ET origins
BeagleBob writes:

Also, why in the world are people bringing up asteroid impacts? Not everything that falls to the earth are large, solid masses. The most likely explanation is an accretion of interstellar dust earlier in Earth's history, when planets were still mopping up remaining residues.

Good point! The theory of abiogenic petroleum origin is friendly to your POV.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by BeagleBob, posted 06-17-2008 12:34 PM BeagleBob has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2973 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 21 (471721)
06-17-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Granny Magda
06-17-2008 6:29 PM


Re: Dawkins
I think the clip is honest. Did you see it? He wasn't trying to give ID it's "best shot", at least it doesn't come off as that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Granny Magda, posted 06-17-2008 6:29 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 06-17-2008 9:28 PM randman has not yet responded

  
BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 3751 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 18 of 21 (471731)
06-17-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Jack
06-17-2008 5:30 PM


Re: Biospheres and ET origins
quote:
Interstellar dust does not fall in sufficient quantities to create a high enough concentration to acount for the origin of life.

Well certainly not 5 billion years after the formation of the planet.

I will of course admit that I'm not a cosmologist so I don't know the rates of dust accretion 4 billion years ago. However, the hypothesis is so very compelling given the fact that it would solve the problem of chirality.

Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.

Edited by BeagleBob, : Word substitution: "hypothesis."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 06-17-2008 5:30 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 06-18-2008 4:45 AM BeagleBob has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 19 of 21 (471741)
06-17-2008 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
06-17-2008 8:01 PM


Re: Dawkins
I think the clip is honest. Did you see it? He wasn't trying to give ID it's "best shot", at least it doesn't come off as that.

Quite honestly I forget which clips from Expelled I have or haven't seen. It makes no difference though. Who is the better judge of what Richard Dawkins thinks about directed panspermia? Me? You? Ben Stein? Could it possibly be Richard Dawkins?

Which source is best placed to offer a clear view of Dawkins' opinion? Expelled, which seeks to ridicule Dawkins or dawkins.net which is completely under Dawkins' editorial control?

It seems absurd to suggest that Dawkins is using his own website to promote opinions to which he does not adhere, only to let his real feelings slip out in some interview. Why can't you just take the man's word that he believes what he believes?

Dawkins doesn't believe that life came from space, as anyone who has read his books will be aware. He was discussing a hypothetical scenario, which he considers to be vanishingly improbable, but still more likely than creation by a supernatural entity, since it can still be explained by reference to natural processes ( the aliens themselves must have evolved). When he brings up this kind of argument it is invariably for the purpose of making the "who designed the designer" point, not as a serious suggestion in its own right.

Taking this, as I believe Stein does, to mean that "Richard Dawkins believes in aliens" is a dishonest misrepresentation of Dawkins' views.


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 06-17-2008 8:01 PM randman has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 20 of 21 (471768)
06-18-2008 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by BeagleBob
06-17-2008 8:54 PM


Re: Biospheres and ET origins
I'm far from convinced there is a problem of chirality. Even if there is, I'm not sure how this is supposed to solve it. The most biased interstellar creation scenarios I know of only create a 60/40 bias. Compare that to selective binding to crystal faces which get a 90/10 bias.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by BeagleBob, posted 06-17-2008 8:54 PM BeagleBob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by BeagleBob, posted 06-18-2008 4:09 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 3751 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 21 of 21 (471834)
06-18-2008 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Jack
06-18-2008 4:45 AM


Re: Biospheres and ET origins
Well now that's fascinating. I hope you brought enough sources to share with the rest of the class. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 06-18-2008 4:45 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019