E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNASA's secret is finally out: Researchers say they've forced microbes from a gnarly California lake to become arsenic-gobbling aliens. It may not be as thrilling as discovering life on Titan, but the claim is so radical that some chemists aren't yet ready to believe it.
If the claim holds up, it would lend weight to the idea that life as we know it isn't the only way life could develop. Organisms with truly alien biochemistry could conceivably arise on a faraway exoplanet, or on the Saturnian moon Titan, or even here on Earth.
"Our findings are a reminder that life as we know it could be much more flexible than we generally assume or can imagine," Felisa Wolfe-Simon, an astrobiology researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey, said in a statement from Arizona State University announcing the results. Wolfe-Simon is the lead author of a paper reporting the findings, which was published online today by the journal Science.
Four years ago, while studying at ASU, Wolfe-Simon proposed that some organisms in extreme environments might be adapted to use arsenic in place of phosphorus. Phosphorus is one of the elements essential to life's chemistry -- in addition to carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur. Arsenic, which is just below phosphorus on the periodic table, is poisonous precisely because it can take phosphorus' place in biomolecules.
"It gets in there and sort of gums up the works of our biochemical machinery," ASU's Ariel Anbar, a co-author of the Science paper, explained.
In search of arsenophiles
Wolfe-Simon theorized that some organisms could have evolved in ancient times to make use of arsenic-based compounds known as arsenates, in place of the phosphates used by virtually all the organisms we know today. Such arsenophiles might even persist in environments with elevated levels of arsenic -- environments such as the hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean, or Mono Lake in California.
Mono Lake?
It turns out that that eerie-looking tourist destination, 13 miles east of Yosemite National Park, contains arsenic as well as the usual phosphorus. Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues designed an experiment to take a particular type of salt-loving bacteria called GFAJ-1 from Mono Lake's mud sediments, wean it off phosphorus, and see if it could switch its diet to arsenic.
David Mcnew / Getty Images file
Limestone formations rise from California's salty, arsenic-laden Mono Lake. Researchers say they coaxed bacteria taken from the lake to use arsenic in place of phosphorus - and suggest that alien life forms could use a similar arsenic-based biochemistry.
In the paper published today, the researchers report that some of the bacteria could survive on arsenic and incorporate it into their cellular biochemistry. Instead of the usual phosphate-rich DNA, they observed arsenate-rich DNA. Heightened levels of arsenic also showed up in the cell's proteins and fats. The scientists used mass spectroscopy, radioactive labeling and X-ray fluorescence to confirm that the arsenic was really being used in the biomolecules rather than merely contaminating the cells.
If that could happen in the laboratory, why couldn't it happen naturally? ASU astrobiologist Paul Davies, another one of the paper's co-authors, has long held that "weird life" -- based on chemical building blocks unlike our own -- could exist right under our noses on Earth, or in extraterrestrial environments.
"This organism has dual capability," Davies said in today's announcement. "It can grow with either phosphorus or arsenic. That makes it very peculiar, though it falls short of being some form of truly 'alien' life belonging to a different tree of life with a separate origin. However, GFAJ-1 may be a pointer to even weirder organisms. The holy grail would be a microbe that contained no phosphorus at all."
Davies said GFAJ-1 was "surely the tip of a big iceberg" -- and Wolfe-Simon agreed.
"If something here on Earth can do something so unexpected, what else can life do that we haven't seen yet?" she asked. "Now is the time to find out."
Some bet that it's wrong
Some scientists said they were impressed by the measures that Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues took to verify their findings. "The organization of the experiments presents convincing and exhaustive results," Milva Pepi, an environmental microbiologist at the University of Siena, was quoted as saying in a Science news report.
But Steven Benner, an astrobiologist at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, told me he was unconvinced. He was invited to Washington today to lay out the skeptical view during a much-hyped news conference at NASA Headquarters. "I'm the guy they bring in to throw the wet blanket over all the enthusiasm," he joked.
He was impressed by the finding that bacteria could get by with so little phosphorus and so much arsenic, but he questioned the conclusion that the arsenic was truly taking the place of phosphorus. Benner explained that chemists have long been familiar with the properties of arsenate compounds. "We know, for example, that they fall apart in water quickly," he said. "Those structures are not going to survive in water."
Felisa Wolfe-Simon takes samples from a sediment core she pulled up from the remote shores of 10 Mile Beach at California's Mono Lake. She uses these samples as starters for cultures to select for microbes that can survive and flourish with high arsenic and no added phosphorus.
In their paper, Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues say that the GFAJ-1 bacteria can apparently cope with that instability, perhaps because of intracellular mechanisms that keep water out. Benner, however, said that other scientists would have to first confirm that the arsenic is really being taken up the way the paper describes, and then figure out how the process squares with what's already known about biochemistry.
"If this result is true, we've got to go back and rewrite a lot of chemistry," Benner said.
Benner is willing to put his money where his mouth is: "I've wagered Felisa $100 that that's not arseno-DNA," he told me.
That being said, Benner acknowledged that arsenic could conceivably play a role in sustaining truly alien life. "If I'm going to go to Mars, where the temperature is lower, and water is scarcer, and arsenate esters are more stable, this is something I might look for," he observed.
Hype vs. reality
The paper published today could be regarded as the latest chapter in a discussion that's been going on for years among astrobiologists. Wolfe-Simon, Davies and Anbar telegraphed their hypothesis almost two years ago in a paper titled "Did Nature Also Choose Arsenic?" In another paper, Wolfe-Simon speculated that arsenic-based life could exist on Mars or one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. And in June, a different group of researchers reported results hinting at the possibility of an alternate biochemistry on Titan, one of Saturn's moons.
So when NASA announced that Wolfe-Simon and other astrobiologists were gathering in Washington today to discuss results that could "impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life," speculation ran rampant. Some journalists, including yours truly, could deduce what the news conference was about and read the study in advance -- but only on the condition that nothing referencing the research would be published until Science lifted its embargo. Others figured out that the revelations had to do with arsenic and Mono Lake, even without getting an advance peek at the paper.
Still others took wild guesses about the subject of the news conference. Had NASA detected arsenic on Titan? Was there evidence of extraterrestrial biology at work?
"Some of the coverage has been almost comically erroneous," Ginger Pinholster, director of public programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told Space.com. The AAAS is the publisher of the journal Science, and Pinholster is in charge of the operation that distributes the journal's papers in advance.
Here's a video about the research that was done up by the AAAS:
The whole idea behind the embargo system is that journalists have a chance to digest publications, ask questions and put the research in perspective before they publish their articles. The system isn't perfect -- as NASA and Science found out in August when embargoed research about a bizarre planetary system was outed on Twitter an hour before the scheduled release. And some make the argument that the system is too elitist for the Internet age.
I'm in favor of embargoes -- in part because it helps avoid precisely the kind of hype that was engendered by NASA's public announcement about the news conference. In fact, I'd argue that such announcements should be governed by the same embargo, to head off the cycle of hype and disappointment that some of you may be going through this week. There's also the advantage that you can almost immediately check the original research paper if you so choose.
The scientific search for evidence of life beyond Earth isn't as fast-paced as a science-fiction plotline -- and maybe that part of the story is as important as the news about arsenic in the old lake. But what do you think? Are you disappointed? Intrigued? Bugged by the hype, or bugged by the current system for publishing scientific research? Feel free to chime in with your comments below.
Update for 5:35 p.m. ET: This afternoon's NASA news conference served to lay out the case for (and against) arsenic-based life, and one of the high points came when Wolfe-Simon and Benner sparred over how much arsenic might have been incorporated into the bacteria's biological machinery. Here are other highlights:
- Wolfe-Simon gave a tour de force explanation of her results, including a jazzy computer-generated video showing arsenic atoms replacing phosphorus atoms in a DNA chain. We're offering the video just above. Give it a click.
- Benner brought a couple of lengths of heavy chain links to represent molecular chains, as well as a twisted-up ring of aluminum foil to represent the arsenic. The message underlying the props was that arsenic compounds would be too weak to bind molecular chains together for a long time before breaking.
- Pamela Conrad, a researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center who specializes in Martian astrobiology, said the Science result was "delightful because it makes me have to expand my notion of what environmental constitutents might enable habitability." If high levels of arsenic as well as organic molecules were found by future Mars probes -- for example, NASA's Curiosity rover, which is due for launch next year -- "you could begin to put a picture together about what the environmental chemistry might portend," Conrad said.
- The biggest OMG moment came when Mary Voytek, head of NASA's Astrobiology Program, referred to a classic "Star Trek" episode in which the Enterprise crew confronted a seemingly menacing creature called a Horta. "This is, in our mind, the equivalent of finding that Horta, which was silicon-based life, substituting carbon -- which is what we think all life forms are made of -- with silicon. Now we're talking about an organism that we think ... is replacing phosphorus with arsenic," she said. "This is a huge deal."
Fascinating...
Science lifted its embargo on the research paper, "A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus," shortly after noon ET today. The AAAS said the embargo was lifted because "news reports disclosing the findings in the paper are now appearing online."
In addition to Wolfe-Simon, Davies and Anbar, authors include Jodi Switzer Blum, Thomas R. Kulp, Gwyneth W. Gordon, Shelley E. Hoeft, Jennifer Pett-Ridge, John F. Stoltz, Samuel M. Webb, Peter K. Weber and Ronald S. Oremland. The study was funded in part by NASA's Astrobiology Program. Wolfe-Simon, Anbar, Davies and Oremland are members of the NASA Astrobiology Institute "Follow the Elements" team at Arizona State University.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter.
Leave a Comment:
That's it? As interesting as it seems...I dunno, I'm kinda disappointed. There was a lot of anticipation, suspense...it's a bit of a letdown, but it is interesting nonetheless. Hopefully we can find similar life out there.
I think that this is monumental because it relates to the bottom rungs of the ladder of organism development.
While we all would like to see someone pull a bug-eyed monster out of a picnic cooler, real life research is about collecting the microscopic details of how life might vary.
Remember the automated tests of Martian soil that were part of the Mars rovers' program? It would NOT have checked for life based on this combination. Now that we know there is a possibility for life to base itself on Arsenic, future experiments will have a broader range of tests.
It is entirely possible that somewhere on Earth are forms of life based on alternate chemistry, but we simply have not know where, or how, to look.
We have proof positive: sarah palin and glenn beck
Consider this. Could it be possible that alternative life forms are the cause of some human diseases?
Wow, political humor! Hilarious!
Please, lets keep the anti-science people out of the discussion.
You know what my gripe with this story is?
Not the hype, the lead-up, the over exaggeration.
It's the use of the term evolution and the state of affairs within our scientific understanding and public discourse within these scientific discussions. This article, and articles like it use "evolution" because without it ... discussions like this don't make any sense. They are, in fact impossible. It's our understanding of evolution that makes the quest for life (and the betterment of that of our own) possible.
Yet, we turn a blind eye to the dumbing-down of America. We ignore the cancer that is ravaging our science classrooms and we bow to the fabricated "teach the controversy" conspiracy theory. If we can't be honest up front about this prevalent (although ignored issue), how on earth can we expect the general public to receive these stories? Just what narrative are they being breed to ascribe, and at what cost is this upon our scientific progress, education and future.
How long do we bury our heads in the sand on this issue? I don't mean to stir the pot. I just think it's intellectually dishonest when we overlook these issues and expect the general public to catch-up. But, they won't. If we think we can keep going at this rate of misunderstanding within our basic scientific concepts without a blowback ... I'm afraid we're mistaken.
It's our scientist's job to fund our dreams with each of their discoveries. It's ours to listen.
I believe the press announcement will allude to something other than substituting arsenic for phosphoric compounds.
If memory serves me correct, NASA was surprised by the lack of Arsenic on Titan when, based on their biogeo analysis, it shouldve been much more abundant. Thus, they might hint at the possibility that it is already being utilized. (dun dun DUNNNN)
D.Man, that was hydrogen which was suspiciously absent. They did find lakes of liquid methane, which they referred to the same way as this article refers to arsenic.
Damnit, you're right. I'm listening to the live stream now. This Brenner fellow was actually pretty fair and level-headed. I was expecting an irrational, O'Reilly type character. I think he's impressed with the way Simon-Wolfe is handling herself, she's relatively young to be in this type of press announcement.
"He was impressed by the finding that bacteria could get by with so little phosphorus and so much arsenic, but he questioned the conclusion that the arsenic was truly taking the place of phosphorus." Okay, try reading this with a child's mind. Just because it uses arsenic does not conclude anything. It still uses phosphorus! When my children and children I have taken care of read scientific new findings, they giggle. My kids know that 1 + 1 = 2, logic. They know when you mix colors they make different colors. Scientist are trying to grab at anything to prove Aliens, are they really scientist or just trying to prove their hypothosis? It is sad all of my money going to prove someones point vs. real science.
NASA always makes such announcements when congress is finalizing the budget. A few years ago, it was Martian fossils found in meteorites in Antarctica. They always have something in the top drawer, ready to bring out when budget time comes around.
This is just the way Washington works, and the announcement is for political and budgetary purposes, not scientific purposes.
uMM.... i'm just a layman, but i have longed believed that science's expectation that life can only develop in the predictibale way that we are currently familar with; a bit self-centered. OPEN YOUR MIND, scientists of earth! i am becoming ashamed of you.
Does anyone else get the feeling this is how the zombie virus is created?
To the guy that wrote this
I can't wait til extraterrestrial life is proven and the major religions of the world are forced to derive some alternate creation myth. It should make for good reading. It may go somthing like this; On a planet's moon, far far away, God created a creature incapable of evil. He called it bacteria, and it was good.
The more study we do the more we find that the earth is an exceptional planet what with the many special characteristics that made it possible for animal life to thrive. Every thing from the present of Jupiter at the distance it is (which draws away metors etc) to the relatively large moon that stablizes our rotation to many the fact of the great intelligence of man that is far and away greater than what we need to survive. We were placed here by a designer (GOD) and when the scientist climbs the mountain and gets to the top of scientific knowledge there will sit GOD. We did not evolve, we are creatures and creatures need a creature.
If I were to speculate on God's intent for man I would suspect that He has made many earth creatures that will be able to adapt to strange environments on other planets once we spread out in the cosmos. Maybe earth will be the seed planet for spreading types of life to other planets because it may show that like the microbe other earth life can adapt to alien worlds someday.
Some day in the distance future, maybe all the Universe will be filled with life that originated on the earth. Maybe we (man as made by GOD) will be ET.
We are always looking for SIMPLE lifeforms because, naturally, WE are at the top of the evolutional ladder. there may be a life form out there that is quantum leaps ahead of us and to them WE are the simple microbe lifeforms that some 3rd grader is studying in beginning biology. I think THAT'S the biggest problem with Humans......EGO. We need to look UP the ladder not always down it.
I do...
Actually, A Veteran, we look for simple life forms, because they have a propensity to vastly multiply in a relatively short order, and it is easier to find adaptations in them. Evolution, and adaptations are processes that are best measured in generations rather than years, and in complex organisms, it would be extremely difficult to measure either due to the longer lifespan, and reproduction times. Unless you had a time machine of course. Superiority has nothing to do with it.
Meh, this is no big deal. Life will do anything it can to make something into an energy source. You don't need a Phd to understand that.
Fascinating story, and of course, I as a Creationist (pause to let the laughter die down) see diversity in Creation. I read the theories, and the findings, and I think "Wow, that's God's hand at work. He is so much more complex than any of us can imagine" and I see secular science say, "Wow, our evolutionary world is so complex, how can we ever understand it all?" Either way, this is a piece of the puzzle, and Creationist or not, I would like to see how this piece fits into the whole.
And let me guess, swimming in this California lake is ill-advised?
"It's our scientist's job to fund our dreams with each of their discoveries. It's ours to listen."
Sadly about half of America has turned away from science. I remember in the 60's, during the space race, when science riveted Americans. Now we have ranting idiots (with no credentials) ripping at the scientific community. Scientific study has become almost un-American in their minds. Go back and read Palin's rant against Tsetse Fly research. This is what America needs?
Academics are under attack (a constant in my local paper) and there is constant talk of taking America back (truly, backwards). We now see creation museums with millions of visitors every year sprouting on the landscape. As if the Bible offers even a clue to the answers that still elude us. It is little wonder the world often mocks us. The most advanced nation in the world could be brought to its knees by ignorance. The irony of irony. Truly a greater threat than any terrorist can now offer.
@Levi --
"Wow, that's God's hand at work. He is so much more complex than any of us can imagine"
Wow! It's so awesome that you know the "hand of god," can recognize his work ... and begin to think you have a personal relationship with him! I mean, wow! That must be awesome. And, really humbling. Knowing that he created all of this for us. What a swell entity!
Just curious? Out of the something like 4,000 gods man has created since the dawn of civilization .... which god has revealed himself to you? Will you put in a good word for me? I haven't had the said luxury of experiencing divine revelation yet.
vox,
myself, i am a creationist. as is levi777.
i cannot speak for levi, however, after reading his post, and knowing my personal feelings towards scientific advancement (as well as fellow members of my congregation) i can only tell you that you paint with an extremely broad brush. if Palin wants to rant, that does not include me, nor those people i associate with (creationists, most of them)
it is the attitude such as yours (we are correct, you are stupid) that pushes science away from mainstream america. with all the unknowns out there that science doesnt know the answer to (and the evolutionary theory cannot posit a sound reason for) why is it you folk are so absolutely adamant that there is no chance at all for creation? anyone who posits such is subject to ridicule from the scientific establishment. (even those highly qualified scientists [each in their own field])
there is so much written in the Bible that has been verified as true. there is no reason to disbelieve. Christians, and creationists are not anti-science (i know that must be a shock to you) truth be told, i am facinated by true scientific discoveries as it gives us all insight as to how God created. that God created is a given, the real quest of science is the discovery of how. the idea that we can 'look into the mind of God' is what brought many to science back in the day. and still would, were it not for the incredibly rabid ferocity of those who oppose the very idea of there even being a God.
you simply dont know, and your dismissal of brilliant minds that do believe is where the crux of the problem lies.
i suggest you think deeply on this.
case in point, the brilliance of chads writing above this post should be proof enough of my point.
way to go chad. keep up the ignorance.
@jackel
Here's the problem with your ENTIRE summation.
If you just happened to have been born in Iran. You would speaking the same tune. Only, instead of Jesus and the bible, you would be telling us all of how glorious Allah and the Quran's creation story is. I mean, it really is that simple.
That's why science is so beautiful. It's based on skepticism and observation which can change with every new data-point we gather ... not ideological dogmas cast in stone and "revelation." To be honest. When I look to the beauty of the heavens, it almost seems quite trivial to pass such aesthetics onto our violent, jealous, manmade notion of god ... don't you think? If there is a first-cause creator called "god," I should think he/she/it would be quite offended by the violent, petty notions of what man has created to glorify his name. And, if you're in the company of those who think he writes books .... well, I'm afraid you're going to need to do a whole lot better than the bible.
Furthermore, I take great offense by your insult and implied accusations. I never attacked *anyone's* intelligence. I'm afraid your willingness to spread false information in my stead speaks more of you then it does of me my friend.
Oh Chad...
You're so defensive of science untouched by that dirty word "God". I believe in Creationism, as well as science and evolution.. the two don't have to be mutually exclusive, and it's ironic to me how all the "backward Bible-thumpers" out there seem to feel this way while you stand on your soapbox damning anyone who believes you can have both.
This is the news we thought we'd get...
Photos of Extraterrestrial Life Forms, Alien Microbes Discovered in Michigan Ice Meteorite, May Be From Saturn's Moon Enceladus
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/289/748/Photos_of_Extraterrestrial_Life_Forms,_Man_Claims_Discovery_of_Microscopic_Alien_Life_in_Ice_Meteorite.html
chad,
i call bs.
your condecending tone in your above post to levi777 is exactly what my post above referenced.
and if you dont think that your evolutionary theory is an ideological dogma that has been cast in stone, then you my friend dont know the meaning of the word honesty. to be honest.
and i dont care that you take great offense by my 'supposed' insult. you were and are condecending, and demeaning. and if you cannot see that in your post, then you are irrational to boot.
i have great faith in the Truth of the Bible. you have great faith in the evolutionary version of science. we both are looking for the truth. if you absolutely discount one in favor of the other, (which it is obvious you do) where is your integrity?
personally, i dont discount either, ( though i lean as solidly towards God and the Bible as you do towards evolutionary theory) but i have seen too many errors in evolutionary science to make me believe it is correct. when we get more information, i am willing to do research for verification, and am man enought to admit im wrong (if indeed i am) my question to you is, are you?
it is a rhetorical question, as im sure i know your answer. i just dont believe it.
If God made us, then God also made our intense curiosity about the world around us. My problem with religion is humankinds historical mistakes imposing their will under God's good name. Also, my previous post on page five wasn't aimed at Levi. Was definitely disappointment over not really finding Extra Terrestrial life.
@VMCovert
Man! Do all creationists have a complete lack of comprehensive reading skills as well?!
Please, for the love of your god, show me ONE instance where I said there could not be a "god." Show me where I attacked anyone's intelligence. Newton is single handedly the most most brilliant scientific mind man has ever produced. He was also a devout Christian. (he also believed in alchemy by the way, but that's besides the point.) Does any of this matter? Francis Collins, another brilliant scientist who happens to be Christian. Great, grand, wonderful. Can we please stop with the use of strawmans in order to attack my argument?
The only thing I've said this entire time is that when we look for the face of god, and claim to have found him within our own beliefs and biases of science, then we've missed the point. There is a reason "creationism" i.e. intelligent design is not a science. If you can't realize your own belief-handicaps based within your "faith," then I really don't know how we can have an intelligible conversation. I have no problem with the idea of god. In actuality, I find the philosophical underpinnings of such a being quite beautiful. The point. The one you seem to overlook. Is that if your willing to engage within a scientific discourse, and want to inject the precepts of a bible, Quran, or any other holy book as a template for the discussion .... well .... sorry. No thanks.
Is still a cool scientific discovery just not what I was hoping to read about. What are the applications of an arsenic eating bacteria aside from simply being able to make it? LOL, not aimed at me either.
@jackel
Then that's it. I'm afraid there's nothing really else to say. It would be the same if I was on here trying to argue with someone that gravity was real. The irony of course, is that we know *more* about evolution than we do about causation/correlations within gravity. But, I don't hear you questioning that theory. I wonder why?
Look jackel. If it makes you feel better to paint me (and my perspective) with a dark brush of cynicism and "BS". Well, you're welcome to it. I can assure you I've had more late nights of conversation, wine and talks of god, life, spirituality and philosophy then you would believe. But, it makes my words no more prevalent then your own.
You're also quite free to your own beliefs (regardless of what the evidence shows you.) Bell well
Have you ever even read the Bible? science and the bible do not contradict each other. evolution is a theory, not science itself. science has to be observable. there is a big difference between micro and macro evolution. the Bible has nothing against micro evolution: in the story of Noah's arc only two of each kind of animal entered the arc, and we have all the variation there is now in those kinds. i.e. all the different kinds of dogs in the world came from one pair of dog. we can observe micro evolution scientifically. macro evolution on the other hand no one has ever observed. the theory of "evolution" (referring to macro evolution) is just that:a theory. because it can't be proven scientifically.
I think we should worry about jobs and what our government is spending our money on like this.
Eugene
I can only hope you're joking ... right?
What did all the carnivores eat on the ark?
Did the lions nestle gently with the T-Rex's and antelope?
How did Noah gather the billions of different species of insects, arachnids, etc...
I mean seriously. This is my point. You want to come to a scientific discussion with this stuff? I'm not being facetious here. A great deal of my Christian friends would find the premise of your argument quite ridiculous as well.
I won't even get into your misunderstandings of evolution. How can you argue against something you clearly don't understand? I could completely relate if you actually showed you comprehend what evolution is (and then told me it's without merit.) But, that's not what you're doing.
Also, yes I have read the bible. Many times. The Quran as well. I've studied a great deal of man's religious beliefs and philosophies. My favorites would have to be found with the teachings of Buddha.
chad,
Wow! It's so awesome that you know the "hand of god," can recognize his work ... and begin to think you have a personal relationship with him! I mean, wow! That must be awesome. And, really humbling. Knowing that he created all of this for us. What a swell entity! all from your post #1.22
and that is not condecending, nor insulting to someone?? are you serious? you dont see your own cynicism in that?
to answer, i dont question gravity because gravity is obvious. to anyone.
i would agree that we know more about variation or change that living things go through, however that does not equal evolution as it is scientifically postulated.
If you can't realize your own belief-handicaps based within your "faith," then I really don't know how we can have an intelligible conversation now, turn this around. what you fail to understand, or realize is that evolutionary theory is your own faith, with it's inherent belief-handicap. your late night discussions about God notwithstanding.
if you truly are open-minded, might i suggest a book for you? "evidence that demands a verdict" by josh mcdowell. are you open-minded enough for it?
truly and sincerely, all the best to you.
Seriously, this religion crap needs to stop. Since the term has already been used, every "Bible Thumper" knows that MAN IS FALLIBLE. The Bible states that several times throughout.
Chad is right, those who are arguing that "God did it" and "we are right, you are stupid" need to reflect on your words. Skepticism is what revolutionized science, and you call a skeptic narrow minded. Look at history people. Look at how narrow-minded the CATHOLIC CHURCH was about something different? Condemning a scientific genius under house arrest because he proved something "out of the norm?" Seriously. Man has proven that life can evolve from a single cell. That is what the hype in the article is concerning.
Also, to stop the argument about "who wrote the Bible," how many times has the Bible been translated throughout history? For all we know, it could have been some loon. Again, MAN IS FALLIBLE. We all came from Mesopotamia, science has proven that. This "God" was created because Man did not yet understand everything around him. Besides, you look at the true meaning of the Scripture in ANY RELIGION, they all say the SAME THING. Treat others how you want to be treated. The rest of it is just a story based on fact, but not fact itself.
@jackel -- I said I was never intentionally insulting. I never said I wasn't a smartass.
"What I claim is to live to the full the contradiction of my time, which may well make sarcasm the condition of truth. " -- Roland Barthes
chad,
eugene may not have a complete understanding of evolutionary theory, but he knows enough to understand the fallacy in it.
there are a great many highly competent scientists in widely varied fields of study that do grasp the intracacies of the theory, and they dont buy into the idea. if you look, you will find numerous papers. many arent "peer-reviewed" simply due to the fact that they go against the majority, and that is frowned upon. there are in fact several groups of 'Christian' scientists that do peer-review these papers. they are legit, again, though they arent allowed floor time for open discussion. they are silenced by the majority.
and we all are aware that the majority has been wrong more often than not....arent we?
purple ref....
Skepticism is what revolutionized science, and you call a skeptic narrow minded - nope, never did i call a skeptic narrow-minded. it is those who believe that science is the be-all end-all and any who profess faith in God are narrow-minded (or worse) that resort to calling us narrow-minded. also throwing all of us into the same boat as Sarah Palin is pretty narrow-minded, dont you think?
not all Christians fawn all over Ms Palin, nor do we necessarily agree with all she says.
Look at how narrow-minded the CATHOLIC CHURCH was about something different? Condemning a scientific genius under house arrest because he proved something "out of the norm?" - the Catholic church was listening to the Pope, not Christianity as it was meant to be. (read about what Jesus actually taught in the Bible and find out) the pope is indeed fallible man that was placed on a pedestal that shouldnt be there.
Man has proven that life can evolve from a single cell. - evolve? into what exactly? another single cell? we can prove that given certain conditions, things can adapt. all living creatures have the ability to adapt to different circumstances, but a dog will never become a horse, which will never become a human. abiogenesis aside, that is the rock of evolutionary theory, that it has been a 'goo to you' transformation from the primordial soup to humanity. never been seen, unable to be proven. and never happened.
jackel --
Actually no. There are no reputable scientists/biologist that dispute evolution. (key word "reputable') There are however differing ideas of timescales, etc. But, the *fact* we evolved is not disputed. It simply isn't. I suggest you look up the definition of "scientific Theory". As, in your context, you're using the term theory wrong.
Are you familiar with Francis Collins? He is an absolutely brilliant scientist/geneticist. He was the leader/one of the key individuals behind the Human Genome Project. He fights day-in and day-out regarding the corrupting influence of I.D. and science illiteracy/ignorance within our classrooms.
However, what makes him different then the "evil atheist's" that the religious love to hate? Collins is a devout christian. And, while I completely disagree with his attempts to try and reconcile "faith" with science, he actually writes quite beautifully about notions of "god."
The moral?
The point?
The evidence for evolution is simply irrefutable. And, thank god for Christians such as Collins for their courage and dignity in cases that involve evidence and reason. Like evolution.
@Chad 1841583, to respond to your statements, yes, I do have a personal relationship with God, and I know Him. I do not reject science, as I find that science, in so far as it does not count as fact that which is theory, ( such as macro-evolution), is actually quite compatible with belief in God. For example, the Big Bang THEORY, why can it not be possible? God spoke this world into existence, but did it just "blink" into being, or was there a swirling of matter that compressed into a ball? I don't know but the idea is intriguing to me.
As for grouping the God I know in with 4,000 or so other deities created by man, let me posit to you a scenario:
Let us suppose that there was a war between God and His highest angel. That angel led astray 1/3 of all the angels. God won the war, and cast the highest angel and his followers to earth. However, in the course of the war, the earth was destroyed. God recreated the earth, and peopled it with free will creatures. Now, for the sake of this story, let's say you are that highest angel who was cast out of heaven to earth. God has recreated the earth, and put free will creatures on it, and so begins a contest to determin if the free will creatures will follow you, or give their devotion to God. You know your fate is sealed, and there is no forgiveness, and in time you will be cast into the lake of fire, unless you can win this political victory. So you mount a guerilla warfare-style conflict.
Then along comes Jesus, and you manage to have Him killed on a cross. Ah, but He rises from the dead, and you have lost a legal victory.
Well, you're really pissed of now. You hate God, and you hate these weak, free willed creatures that He made to love and know Him. You, however, do not have free will, and cannot help but hate God and His creation. All that's left for you is the political victory, and so you begin a campaign of misinformation, lies, intimidation, and deceptions.
Let me ask you, what would you do? How would you turn people away from the truth that there is one God, and He created the world, and all that is in it. You have no real power, only deceptions and intimidations. Well, first, you would try to convince mankind that you do not exist, or else you are some ridiculous caricature or cartoon from the middle ages. Those that do believe you exist choose to serve you. Aha! Converts! And what of the God you hate so much? Well, you would try to convince the free will beings that God does not exist, or that He is made of wood, or stone, or that something passed down from the very beginning of your people, represented by wood or stone, is the one god. Or you can have many gods. But none of them are the one True God. And you would, through your lies and intimidations have people running around in circles so they never actually come to know their Creator.
And these people you have so deceived will post messages such as the one you posted.
Now, Chad, I don't want to get into a war of words with you. I see that there has been a lot of back and forth over this issue, and I'm glad the Christians showed up on this one. You asked me to put in a good word for you with Him. The best I can do, Chad, is ask Him to tear your world apart, and put it back together with Him as God, and Jesus as Lord. You see, Chad, every knee will bend, and every person will on bended knee recognize, and verbally affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord. You can do it now, and be born again, regenerated, and know this One True God, or you can do it after you have died, and risen from the dead to face judgement before this One True God. Again, imagine that you witness the beauty and majesty of heaven, the pure love that is higher than anything you've ever known, and then you hear "away from Me you worker of wickedness, into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels..." Chad, it is appointed unto each of us to die. We owe God a death (except for those who are alive when Jesus returns) and after that death, comes the Judgement.
Chad, wouldn't you rather know God now, in this age, when His word to mankind is that He loves us, and while we have a problem with evil in us, He sent His only Son, that whoever believes in Him may not suffer death, but have everlasting life. Chad, we can be children of God. Wouldn't you rather know Him now, in His love and mercy, and compassion, or would you rather wait until you have no choice but to acknowledge Him on that day of Judgement? And on that day the acnowledgement will be before being sent away from His presence, away from that love, and life and light. Chad, you are a free will being. You can choose. Recognize the enemy. I would beg of you to know this Jesus Christ. He's only a prayer away, and the only cost of His gift of new life is that new life must be give to Him wholly and without reservation.
If you wish, message me and we can talk further.
what if the bacteria is just a bi product of all the chemicals we produce and it just adapted to the arsenic???? EVOLUTION
In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[
People can believe in God and not HAVE to follow religion. Bottom line, the bible was written by the hands of man. Man is not infallible, God is. Why place so much faith in something written by man? Creationism and evolutionary terms are man's doing, man's thinking...
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
I doubt we'll ever truly know, why do we persist in pointing fingers and b*tching at each other over God? No one really knows...Only God does. Why judge anyone else? Only God has that right...
@Curiously, is adaptation evolution? I'm not sure it is. I mean, if adaptation is evolution, why would monkeys need to change to man? Did buildings start to grow? (just funnin' with ya) I would consider bacteria adapting to arsenic to be evidence of MICRO-evolution. That I can agree with. But this notion we were a puddle of goo on the side of a volcano that slopped into the ocean and became a microbe, then a fish...great fiction!
Levi -- Thanks for those words ... I guess. I feel kind of bad that you wrote so much, but used words that mean so little, to me anyway. I could easily swap out all of your Jesus' and bible's with Allah's and quran's and it would all mean about the same. Which is to say, nothing at all. I have no idea if there is a god or not. But, if there is, I have little worry he's of the violent, archaic and jealous Abrahamic faiths that just happen to be popular at this moment in our history .... so forgive me if I don't quiver with fears of punishment and damnation. But, if you're right. And, your god just happens to be the correct god. Let him know I'm not impressed. If our goal (as his creation) is to praise his glory. Why on earth did he create me an atheist? At any rate ... I hope you find peace in these beliefs. It's obvious that you hold them dear.
Chad, that is perhaps the most understanding and affirming statement of disagreement I have ever had the pleasure to read!
Chad, I do not want you to quiver in fear. Yes, God is compared to a consuming fire (think of a raging forest fire), and as He can wash over us in love and compassion, so He can be perfect wrath. But now is the time to seek Him out. If you do not feel His tug on your heart, then seek Him. He promises that you will find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart. Can you think of no higher pursuit, if you knew that by seeking Him, you would find Him, and together you and He can accomplish great works of good upon this earth?
And Chad, God didn't create you to be an atheist. That scenario I painted is a true scenario, and the very nature of a deception is that the one deceived does not know that he is deceived. And God is glorifed in judgement, as well as mercy. He said of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, the Pharoah ruling when Israel left Egypt, "I created you to show My power and glory through you." But we read that when Moses brought the plagues down on Egypt to force Egypt to release Israel from slavery, for the first three plagues, when Pharoah relented, and Moses called off the plague, Pharoah hardened his heart and changed his mind. After that, God hardened his heart for him. And the end result was the destruction of the armies of Egypt, and Israel wandering free in the desert.
So, Chad, if indeed the ramifications of rejecting the love of God is so severe, why not begin to look into these matters? You may even start with archeology. Over and over, on and on, the historical data in the Bible is being proved by archeology. That's a fascinating study. There's a couple of books; one by Frank Morison, "Who Moved the Stone". Frank was a newspaper columnist, and he set out disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and ended up becoming a devout Christian. There's also "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell, and "More Evidence That Demands a Verdict", by Josh McDowell.
The ramifications are too severe, and the evidence, when you look at it, is too compelling to just dismiss it out of hand. I hope you do understake that searching, Chad. And yes, I will pray for you.
As a highschool student, I see a massive amount of hostility when it comes to the God debate. I would just like to thank both Levi and Chad for keeping the animosity to a relative minimum.
Also, being a Creationist biology student, I would like to know the Naturalistic argument for the existence of the functional information contained within DNA. I do realize that it is slightly off-topic, but I figured that this was one of the best places to ask that question without the answer being burdened with personal attacks. If Chad or someone else would like to respond, I would be much obliged.
T.Willy, don't EVER let them convince you that what you know is not true, then build from there. Honor God and He will honor you. Thank you for your comments, and all your future service to the One True God.
I was let down by this announcement as well. This is a very interesting find but not interesting enough to use the word "extraterrestrial" in the headline. When it comes down to it any biochemical discovery will affect the search for extraterrestrial life. No need to use aliens to hype up this discovery when no aliens are involved.
Levi - forgive me, but that may not be very good advice.
How often have we heard about scientists having pre-conceived notions that bias their research. And yet, your counsel for T. Willy is to hang on to his pre-conceived notions, regardless of any amount of overwhelming proof.
"I just don't believe you", by itself, is not a scientific argument. It's the sign of a mind that is closed to discussion. (And it's a phrase uttered far too often in these comments.)
A better approach is, "I think you are wrong, AND HERE IS WHY", followed by your reasoning and facts.
I will defend my position, yes, but if I'm proven wrong (proof being the operative term here), then, as a scientist, I must accept the truth, no matter how painful. Otherwise, what I am doing is not science.
Respectfully, ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)
chad,
you are incorrect.
your opinion of "reputable" scientists follows the lines of 'majority rules' and it is fallacious.
do some research my friend. there are a great many scientists that have had their tenure (many years) revoked and lost jobs due to questioning the 'norm' of evolutionary science. these people held respect and were acknowledged in their respective fields as worthy contributors. until...
there are a great many more, of course is they dont tow the party line, they are lambasted, removed from duties and position.
you need to study up and learn what is really going on in the scientific community, because it isnt pretty.
allow the brilliant minds room to develop and we will move forward, constrain them by forcing limits on the parameters of hypothesis and we will stagnate.
@T.Willy
I would be happy to provide a reply.
Much (if not all) of the hostility regarding science and god is really unnecessary. I bare some of the blame on this thread as I provided a sarcastic reply to one of my religious friends which was taken a little more harshly than it was intended, and reciprocated by others. For that I apologize.
In truth. There is absolutely zero conflict found within science and "god." Science doesn't disprove god. Nor should/does it try to. There is nothing about science that we could learn that would ever rule out the "possibility" of an all-knowing, first-cause scientist that some would call god.
The conflict. The problem. The reason the States are becoming the laughing stock of the scientific world, is when we allow our own preconceived notions and biases about our "faiths," get in the way of the wonders of science. That, comes through religions and dogmas that are not meant to be questioned. I would agree with Levi. You should never let someone try and "convert" you to anything, scientist or otherwise. We all must think for ourselves. And, scientists give us those tools needed to make informed decisions. You should be very wary of individuals offering you mandated truths, which is were I obviously disagree with Levi.
It's not that science and god are incompatible. It's that our manmade notions of what god is (to us as individuals) has more often than not gotten in the way of real progress. There are a myriad of examples of what was once unknown (but explained through supernatural measures), that we now have real answers and real reasons to explain. In the next 100 years, we will likely have even more answers to the puzzle that is the human condition. However, there will still be beautiful philosophical concepts of god .... which is a good thing. The fact of the matter is, the more and more we learn about life and the universe, the less and less we need a god to make sense of it. That doesn't diminish your personal beliefs by any means. It does however mean that even without these beliefs, the universe works rather nicely. It gets along just fine. If we were all to go the way of the dinosaurs tomorrow ... the universe will get along just fine without us. That's why our lives are so precious. So beautiful and have so much meaning. We are here. For better or for worse and it's all of our duties to make the best of what we have, while we have.
Regarding your question for a naturalistic argument for functional information in DNA. Well, I'd much rather you defer to a biologist who can go into greater depth. Does your teacher provide such insights in class. A great book on evolution that breaks the evidence down in really simple simple terms is Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth."
T.Willy. You mention you're a creationist. I would only ask why? Were your parents Christians? Were you born "into" your beliefs, or did you acquire them through a journey that's taken you to them? If the latter, than I say keep forging ahead. You also mention you are a biology student as well. I can only hope that that path will take you to an even greater journey ... regardless of how your relationship with your faith plays out.
Michael (astronomyFM)
i appreciate the advise you posted for levi777, and i completely understand what it is you are saying, however i will say that you seem (from what i have gathered, not just on the vine but elsewhere as well) a rarity in that you will accept the truth, however painful.
it is my experience that many scientists (the majority i have read up on and heard quotes from) steadfastly refuse to entertain the notion that creation is even a possibility. when confronted with facts and evidence contrary to their pre-conceived notions, belligerence and arrogance is first response, and ridicule is quick to follow.
i find levi's advise to t.willy to be a positive, though i understand your position. the firm understanding of creation and our Creator is made known through everything that is observeable. perhaps we cannot, at this time prove beyond a shadow of doubt, but with every discovery made in science, it pushes us that much closer.
i know that sounds like i am inflexible, but when all discoveries are interpreted in evolutionary light, with no credence given to interpreting them in light of creation, it appears that scientists are the inflexible ones.
when the hypothesis begins with "evolution is true, therefore i will find this..." it leads one away from truth, and towards a pre-conceived idea that must match.
when the hypothesis begins "i observe this, why is it this way..." then and only then can we properly interpret the findings. it opens the mind to search for true answers wherever they lead, as opposed to discounting the answers because they dont "jibe" with the parameters established by evolutionary thought.
i believe with all my heart that science will discover the truth of creation, regardless of the will of the majority so vocally opposed to it.
thanks for your graciousness in your posts. it is refreshing
Thanks Jackle: I'm good with everything you wrote.
Levi: I'm sorry if I mis-read your post. Close-minded scientists is a hot-button issue for me; just the idea is a good way to bring out the Irish in me.
Thanks! ~Michael
chad,
The fact of the matter is, the more and more we learn about life and the universe, the less and less we need a god to make sense of it. That doesn't diminish your personal beliefs by any means.
very well put. i agree that we dont need God (capatilized out of respect) to make sense of the universe, per se. we (of faith) see the wonders of science explaining how God created.
i would say we need God to understand our place within the universe.
we are indeed a special creation. the universe is placed specifically for humanity to live on earth. that does not rule out our travel and possible colonization on other worlds, but everything is in place so humanity and life can exist here.
science is a wonderful tool in assisting us to understand, which is an inherent desire within all of us. do not allow science to diminish the necessity for a creator, as nothing discovered to date leads us in that direction. only pride.
thank you for your apology to the vine, it renews my respect when someone can admit an error.
again, my best to you.
@Michael (AstronomyFM)
Michael, and Jackel64, that which I encourage TWilly to hold onto are truths that cannot be explained away or researched away by science. How many times do we hear and read of a world devoid of God, where Macro-Evolution is taught as truth, and dissenting voices are silenced? Please read TWilly's statement. He is a "Creationist Biology Student". Unless you are proposing that Science can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Creation part is false, then my advice to TWilly stands.
From posting here on Newsvine, I have read many outrageous claims attacking God, Christianity, the Bible, and to the one who is unsure or untrained to spot the phony, these may appear to even have some merit. For me personally, even should I not be able to explain the reasons why, I will continue to live in devotion to God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Even if all the world goes after atheism, and claims scientific proof that God is dead, I will believe in the living God, and His Son, Jesus Christ, and I will do so without reservation or a backward glance. These are set in stone, and will never change. I may grow in understanding our world, our societies, it's peoples, and some truths I hold to may be modified, or changed. But I will never disbelieve in God, or His Son Jesus Christ. I know what He has done for me, and I know what He has done in me. I could no sooner deny Him than I could deny my own existence. He is the truth.
That what I mean for T Willy.
levi777
From posting here on Newsvine, I have read many outrageous claims attacking God, Christianity, the Bible, and to the one who is unsure or untrained to spot the phony, these may appear to even have some merit. For me personally, even should I not be able to explain the reasons why, I will continue to live in devotion to God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Even if all the world goes after atheism, and claims scientific proof that God is dead, I will believe in the living God, and His Son, Jesus Christ, and I will do so without reservation or a backward glance. These are set in stone, and will never change. I may grow in understanding our world, our societies, it's peoples, and some truths I hold to may be modified, or changed. But I will never disbelieve in God, or His Son Jesus Christ. I know what He has done for me, and I know what He has done in me. I could no sooner deny Him than I could deny my own existence. He is the truth.
so beautifully put.
agreed 100%. and never look back.
Thank you, Jackel. It does not come without cost, but may God put that in the heart of every one of His children.
Oh, and @Michael, (Astronomy FM) no problem! We're just talking, right? As I said above, there is only one truth, and One who is true. All else is theory, false or deception. And when the truth is denied, nothing is left but the lie?
The only "intelligently" designed systems we as humans are capable of observing are the ones we create. We have no need of science to argue about the notion of "God". We need only look at the history of men. The idea of our "God" as is commonly believed by people here in the US is based on much older gods from older pantheons. One of these gods, Il, was the supreme god of the Canaanites, who probably evolved into the hebrew God that we know and love today. Keep in mind that several important leaders actively pushed what was a small religion into big state religions ala Constantine the Great. In other parts of the world, the abrahamic religions take on the flavor of the culture they enter, as is the case with Islam. We can look at the Council of Nicaea where we see the major point of debate was whether or not Jesus and God the Father were one and the same. We can see even our tradition of Christmas, which conviently falls very close to the winter solistice and the old holiday of Yule. We don't need science to see that evolution is a fact. We only need to look back over recorded history to see how we change our stories, symbols, and identities to fit our times and ideas better. Evolution in action!
Isn't it cool to find out that there are bacteria that are different from how we normally understand bacteria to exist? I think it is. Hopefully we will continue to learn more about this crazy interesting existence we have.
Is alternate chemistry on the microbial level a component of evolution in more complex organisms? What if ...
The natural defense of humans, for instance, is composed, in part, of hundreds of microbes of various function and classification, these symbiotic relationships with bacterias ward off certain germs that would otherwise threaten our survival - and the types of "good flora" that any person is supporting change over time as they adapt in response to the environment.
During periods of severe environmental stress on earth, such as events that catapulted entire species into extinction, is it possible that microbes which had another take on survival, such as these arsenophiles, rapidly adapted to the unusual environmental elements to protect the host thereby allowing certain species to push into the next age. The opposite is also conceivable, that such alien bacterias might have infected entire populations with a toxic effect to push the struggling species over the edge to extinction. At any rate, footprints such as the DNA of these kinds of bacterias might not be preserved in the fossil record. But I wonder if these sinister bacteria may have had a role in evolution.
Fascinating ...
Levi and Jackel.....
You two should really be ashamed at coming to a scientific discussion with your only intention being to spew creationist propaganda in a pathetic attempt justify the unprovable. Regardless Levi, unprovable. Which is to say I feel bad for Chad who is an enlightened cat (As I read on i see you have successful guilt tripped him into conditionally agreeing with you). I had a similar encounter with a mormon once, I felt like i blacked out and next thing i know I'm nodding my head in approval. *laughs* It wasn't that dramatic..
Jackel and Levi, the one thing that is absolute is that human beings don't have it right. If i can bring one thing to this entire thread that only ignorance could argue against, is that. I don't want to be redundant if someone has already made this point, but nonetheless we have no idea until our legs give out and we hit the dirt. Like Chad pointed out, the concept of (G)*od is an entirely man-made phenomenon, and the very evidence of imperfection rests with the many attempts to create God in mans own image. I regard books such as the bible as historical documents. Not in that they give an accurate telling of history, but they are a powerful piece of human history, that to be honest serves to remind me how far we have come... how much we've evolved in such a short time. For example in the western world we no longer burn people at the stake or crush them for being witches. At any rate, it may not seem so at first glance but just take a sample of the last couple hundred years, I have no doubt in my mind that human beings will eventually evolve out of the religion, sadly it will not be in our lifetime.
Creationism is mysticism. I know I'm not going to influence you, nor do i care too.. but it is as simple as that gentlemen. I understand you though, who wouldn't be afraid of the unknown? As we are the only animals conscious of our impending doom. It is an optimists game that is for sure. It is a great thing to be hopeful for but humans have turned the concept into a sort of afterlife stock market senario when in reality they have absolutely no idea. I find how it has been handled to be hypocritical and absurd.
So in summation, I think you guys had no luck going door to door so you choose to press your beliefs (even in places that they have no buisness being pressed) on this nice new tool called the internet.
Nice article though, I can't wait till the current theory on this arsenic friendly bacteria is either confirmed or disproven. This Benner guy definatly has a point though. As someone pointed out about the budget and this being an attempt to get more $, i think that may be the case, and they decided to announce this one before they had completely tested the subject matter.
*I have enough respect to capitalize the word, as i don't entirely dismiss the possiblilty of a creator, but we will never know nor comprehend.
Chad you dont need to be an butthole about it man. Do most of us not like creationits coming on here? Sure, but its because they come on being disruptive. Yeah they both believe in god... but at least they came on here and gave their point of view, and most of all, were interested in the article itself.
And thats fine. As long as they are commenting about the article, thats cool. they werent trying to be political. Of course they were a bit religious, because its apart of who they are... but it was about being interested in the article.
Dont let your disagreement about religion get in the way of the important part of this message board man.
=====
on that note... I found the article very interested, and I saw videos about it. It will be alot easier to find life on other worlds now that you cant rely on the normal 6 blocks to be the only factors for obtaining life.
To other people out there who think the scientists before were just being shortminded about it. Thats not true, they were just relying on facts, and not what was only theories at the time.
Now after this experiment gets tested again and if approved by the scientific community... We will be rewriting those books to do even more.
Edward, what the hell are you talking about? Did you even read my exchanges? Maybe you should read what is said before injecting such colorful adjectives ... like "butthole."
@Jackel & Levii -- Why can't the evolutionary theory still fit with God? Although I often question my own religious beliefs, I've never quite understood this. So for right now we'll say the Christian God did create the world. As has been pointed out, the bible was written by man and man is fallible. So God created the world in '7 Days'. What is a day to God? Who is to say he didn't set 'evolution' in motion. Darwin was a Christian and he didn't want his theory to be called evolution. I'm relatively certain he did not say "God didn't create." nor would any scientist say "We evolved from nothing." No matter how you believe life started -- the primordial soup you so disdain could have been created by God and thus setting in motion evolution. No scientist can say where the first cell came from. And no creationist can say that God literally put every animal in it's existing or adapted form on Earth.
And as for your criticism for the scientific community's way of publishing findings, you're somewhat wrong. It isn't the "majority rules" as you put it. I've peer reviewed journals and as long as they have the evidence to back it up, you'll get published. Yes, there's a lot of politics and other BS to deal with. But "revolutionary" and "not popular" science is published all the time. And criticized all the time.
Anyway. That's my two cents.
I read the very first comments made... you started it becuase the guy mentioned being a creationist. Thats how it erupted.
Sorry man, I may be an atheist too, but its best to put the blame to who started it.
Oh. You mean my first comment regarding evolution? The one that makes no mention of religion, god, atheism, etc.... That's the comment which "started" a religious disagreement?
I understand that unless God reveals Himself to you, you cannot believe. It is my hope, my prayer. that God reveals Himself to you. But you know, Jesus healed 10 lepers. Only one returned to give thanks. If God reveals Himself to you, would you give your life to Him? What if He doesn't reveal Himself, or if He has, you blew it off. Can you search for Him and find Him? He promises that if you seek Him with alll your heart, you will find Him. So, be about finding Him. He promises you will be successful if you search with all your heart! Or you can reject it and suffer eternal death. And this doesn't mean you're not conscious. You are.
status-unknown,
no, i am absolutely not ashamed.
levi777 commented on the article. and was attacked by chad. to which i responded. the discussion went from there.
neither levi777 nor myself can change the mind of a disbeliever, that is the work of the Lord.
i came to this article because im facinated by the discovery, and was shocked by the audacity of a post response. (nothing against chad)
you have your way of interpreting the discoveries, we have ours, and when we make a statement it shouldnt be insulted, if it is i most certainly will respond.
wafflecat,
Why can't the evolutionary theory still fit with God? -- good question. first, lets define how you are using the term 'evolution' - i would assume it is the 'pond goo to you' as opposed to variation within a created kind. molecules to man evolution sets itself up against the testimony of the Creator, as it is clearly stated in His word that He created in six actual days (evening and morning, each day) and that the original creation was "very good". the Genesis account is written as a historical narrative in the original language. before the original sin of man, there was no death, no disease, no pain nor suffering. if there was, that wouldnt be good, wouldnt you agree? so, either God is being deceitful in His account or man is wrong about evolutionary processes happening over millions of years.
evolutionary process is not an efficient method of creation, with all the death, pain and suffering that takes place. i would hardly call that 'very good'.
i have heard it stated many times that evolution is fact. what definition is fact? that kinds vary, or that life 'evolved' from single cells? if life 'evolved' from single cells is fact, then we should be able to duplicate that. if not, how do we consider it fact?
i will be happy to go further in this discussion, but it is off-topic and i dont want to run the risk of insulting others. you may contact me for further discussion.
Darwin may have had a Christian upbringing, but he was anything but a Christian. and no evidence of a change of heart on his deathbed either.
i appreciate your questions.
jackel, I have no problem with "old earth creationism", it doesn't seem to be necessary, but it doesn't need to be excluded either, maybe any direct intervention only occcurs from time to time.
there isn't really any evidence for it, but there isn't a lot against either, so the possibility still exists.
the thing that drives me nuts is the people that try to say the Earth is 6000 years old when there is such an overwhelming pile of evidence against it., or they go on about the "great flood" when the "in favor" arguments make absolutely no sense at all.
danwill,
while i can agree with your first two sentences, i am not an old-earth creationist (though i know many who are) personally, i believe in young-earth creation, approx 6000 years give or take.
i dont believe there is an overwhelming pile of evidence against young-earth creation, it is a matter of interpretation of the findings. what about smooth transitions between rock layers supposedly millions of years apart, with no detectible erosion between them?
now, i will say that i personally wasnt there at creation, nor was anyone else who is currently alive on this earth. either way, it is a matter of belief, for or against.
for the record, i came to this vine because i feel this discovery is facinating. the Bible does not expressly state there is no life elsewhere in the universe, but that all (the universe) was placed for life to flourish here on earth. i doubt we will find "intelligent life" (as in star trek, beings capable of building/making/creating) though, this find does open the door for possible life of some sort on other planets. who knows, we may find out there is, perhaps not. that doesnt diminish the finding at all, nor does it diminish the Word of God.
being a creationist and being intrigued by science and it's findings are not and should not be mutually exclusive.
Simply read history. The Calvinists believed that people were predestined to Heaven or Hell regardless of their personal convictions or actions. This is radically different from some modern groups that believe in being "born again". Yet both groups claim to be Christian and representing the truth. The Catholics put great importance on rituals and the priest acting as intermediary while many protestant groups do away with ritual and believe more in personal interpretation of the Bible. Yet both claim to be representing true Christian values. Keeping this in mind, we have to remember that our modern conceptions of religion did not spring out of nothingness, but have been gradually refined from earlier religions. That is why the Old Testament is part of the Bible, to establish the lineage of Jesus and prove that he fits Jewish predictions for the messiah.
Science has nothing to do with it.
simple thinker,
real quick on this one.
Calvinists are humans, hence they are fallible man. same with Catholics and all others.
Christianity is not a religion, it is a way of life. it is a personal, one-on-one relationship between an individual and Christ our Lord.
Christ was asked what is the greatest commandment, His response: from matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
this is the Christian life, and our mission is to spread the gospel(good news) of Christ and our redemption. nothing in here about intermediaries, or other rules. our values as Christians come from this statement by our Lord, not from man's interpretation of the Bible.
regarding religions, a phenomenal book was written by Dr. Henry Morris titled "the long war against God" this is well footnoted, and is an incredible history of religions tracing back in history.
Keeping this in mind, we have to remember that our modern conceptions of religion did not spring out of nothingness, but have been gradually refined from earlier religions. the book answers how our conceptions came about. i would recommended it highly.
best to you.
ah yes, henry morris, the guy who started ICR.
writer of such nonsense as "evolutionism (sic) is satanic and responsible for racism, abortion, and the decline of morality"
that alone is enough to discredit him, but he is a gresat example of "picking and choosing the "facts" that support his beliefs, and ignoring anything that points against his beliefs
if any scientific institution put up requirements like what he requires for people to join ICR, they would be laughed out of town.
people must be absolutely committed to pushing the YEC view, without any question, no matter what shows up.
danwill,
your choice my friend. the book is there.
who knows, you might learn something you didnt know.
humor yourself and try the book. then cast aspersions.
by the way, he explains how evolutionism(sic) is responsible for the above mentioned atrocities. and he is correct to.
just where did you think morality comes from? we "evolved" morals?
here jackel64, here is an essay that was written by michael shermer.
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2006/10/darwin-on-the-right/#more-263
there is an actual evolutionary basis for morality, but the zealots don't want that known.
heh,heh, jackel, I actually posted that before I saw your message 1.76
( I was anticipating that question) :)
I've paged through some of those books, and been to the websites. the paging through the books was at a colleg presentation of "expelled" , and "icons of evolution"
expelled was like a bad michael moore movie (and I'm no fan of his, either), and was filmed using outright lies to the people they "interviewed". try "expelled exposed" for the facts about that one. I couldn't listen to more than 20 minutes at a time.
icons was funny, because it proves that evolution occured among bacteria, and turns around and says the opposite.
but I was nice to everyone there, and everyone there was nice to me,and some of the talk was a bit interesting.
or you guys can be smart and drop the atheist vs theist, evolutionist vs creationist argument and just talk about the article... Thats kind of where I was getting at.
You ARENT I repeat (ARE NOT!!!) going to change each others' minds. So why bother?
LOL, true enough :)
edward duffy,
i will be happy to go further in this discussion, but it is off-topic and i dont want to run the risk of insulting others. you may contact me for further discussion. - my post #1.70
neither levi777 nor myself can change the mind of a disbeliever, that is the work of the Lord. - my post #1.69
i agree, we cannot change each others' minds. i came here to discuss the article.
jackel64j
You may think humans are the only species with morals, we aren't...If you observe how other creatures treat members of their group you will see that they follow a unwritten code of caring and respect. If it wasn't for the ablility for all the creatures to mercy/compassion for others, no specie would have been able to survive because they would have killed or eaten themselves and their young. Morals can't exist or on develop out of nothing, it can only exist if someone has the capacity to feel for another's pain and all species evolved that ability in order for continued existence and prosperity.
The problem was not with NASA's press release - the problem is with the general tone of press coverage (present company excepted, Alan!).
It is also a symptom of the decline in science journalism in general.
NASA has press briefings all the time. I get the press releases on a weekly basis. Most are of events that the general media does not cover at all. So, when something of general interest comes along, the bulk of the media don't know the "rules", or how to handle the story.
Hence - huge exaggeration in anticipation of the release of the embargo.
I, for one, would argue against the embargo of press releases - I like the heads up of upcoming events.
NASA isn't the problem here - the lack of decent science coverage is.
~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)
Well put about journalism. Thank you.
vox,
"Science" has done quite a bit to inhibit valid interest by the general public. So much of scientific community has participated in sensationalizing ridiculous research and have engaged in poor science thatmany have become disenchanted. This research is This research and its reporting is a classic example. This research only provides basic evidence that the effect may be happening. What's being reported is sensationalized as at least Alien life is possible. All they really know is that this organism can adjust to higher levels of arsenic. Science has aldeady demonstrated that some organisms can be conditioned to tolerate high levels of poisons. It does not mean that the basic biology is different.
Hi Steve!
Here is the key point - the one item that sets this story apart.
For a bit over 200 years we have been examining the basic, fundamental properties of life on this world. EVERY living thing on this planet has six elements in common - carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus. These six elements define "life as we know it". For hundreds of years biology looked a fish, and saw the same six elements. Grass - the same six. Elephants - the same. Ants, whales, corn, you name it - the same. And today, after a couple of centuries, it's announced that THERE IS SOMETHING NEW!
These are not microbes that tolerate arsenic; we've seen that before. This is a life form that incorporates arsenic into its DNA!
If proven this is a big deal.
An analogy: imagine that I'm holding a rock. I let go, and it falls. I've tested gravity. I hold a pen, let go - it drops. Let go of a cannonball - it drops (and flattens my foot). For hundreds of years, and after millions of trials, no matter what we are holding - let go and it drops. And THEN, for the first time ever, someone lets goes of something and for some weird reason it floats, rather than drops.
If you are a biologist this news is just as weird; just as earth-shaking.
This may be the start of a whole new biology. It could have a HUGE impact on medicine, agriculture, aging - who knows?
But it's not every day that a great big jump in understanding happens in science. To steal the quote, of what good is a new born baby? We don't yet know. I'd bet a sawbuck that this will be pretty darn big.
Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)
Michael,
I certainly understand the ramifications if the research proves out. It fundamentally changes the biological definition of life.
It's the "If proven it's a big deal." is the key statement.
What I was refering to is the propensity of science today to sensationalize fidings before all the research is done. It's one thing to present compelling information to the "scientific community", and quite another to present this stuff in a sensationalistic way. It's analogus to annoucing that a cure for cancer has been found when in reality a gene that may be responsible for creating a predisposition to a specific cancer has been located.
What? Cancer hasn't been cured yet? Haven't we gotten the news of the cure weekly for the past 20 years? (n the immortal words of Rosanna Rosanna Danna, "Never mind.")
Steve - you make your point well - thanks.
Mike - LOL,
And what's all the fuss about violins on TV?
michael and steve,
well done both.
and you guys are dating yourselves with the SNL references -- though i must be as well since i was cracking up myself.
best to you both
Dated, yes. I'm "too old to rock 'n' roll, too young to die"
To Michael (Astronomy.FM) The words I put in quotes were written that way to show particular "emphasis" on those words; an accepted grammatical style of writing.
Michael (astronomy.FM) or Alan,
perhaps one of you could shed some light on this for me, slightly off-topic though it is.
it is my understanding that to date we havent found a solar system outside of our own that has planets orbiting a sun in a circular pattern, they are elliptical, moving in close, then retreating far away from the solar body. the extremes preventing life as we know it (notwithstanding this new discovery). is this actually the case? have there been any system's located where the planets orbit around it's sun similar to our own system?
we don't have the tools to detect an Earth-sized planet orbiting another star yet, especially not an earth-like and earth-sized planet in a similar orbit to our own around a sun-like star.
there are two new satellites that are looking for other planets right now, the number found is several hundred, and likely to increase significantly with these new observations, yet these ones still couldn't spot Earth from another star, satellites that could do so are being planned, but with current budget problems, they will probably be cut.
the reason that the the oddballs like the ones you mentioned (and your sources are significantly outdated, BTW) was that they were easiest to detect using those early methods , as well as easiest to verify due to their short orbital periods.
the first extrasolar planets, were detected by the pull of the planet against the star. this pull causes the star to move towards the planet just as the pull of the star keeps the planet pulled towards the star. of course, the effect on the star is quite a bit less than the satrs effect on the planet, but this is why that method works best for large planets. Jupiter pulls the sun off-center by roughly 1 million miles due to Jupiters own gravitational influence on the sun. if we were at another star, we could measure Jupiters effect on the Sun now, but it would take time to verify the pull and the orbit (9 years+- for Jupiter). the actual measurement was made by the doppler shift (red to blue shift) of the light. this can actually be measured extremely precisely with modern instruments, and can make velocity measurements of a few meters per second
I think the smallest extra-solar planet found so far, still measures about 6 times the mass of the Earth, and it is orbiting a red dwarf star. one (still large) planet was found pretty much in the "life zone" of it's red dwarf sun, (which also means very close to the cool star) and in a nearly circular orbit. is that planet a potential candidate for life? maybe, but it is likely tidally locked, which would make such a prospect considerably more unlikely.
there are no "circular orbits" they are all ellipses, but ours are more circular than some that have been found
anothe rmethod being used is occlusion of the star by a planet,.
needless to say, both methods only really work if the plane of the solar system in question is perpindicular to us (more or less). but it let's us make reasonable estimates of the numbers of planets among the remainder
Hi Jackel! If I may build on Dan's gooder post....
Depending on who's list you are referring to, there are 500+ exoplanets (worlds orbiting stars beyond our Sun) that have been declared by astronomers. There are additional 1000's of additional exoplanets that we are working on confirming.
Detecting exoplanets is on the very edge of what we may detect with our current tech. That's an important point when considering whether the solar systems we are finding are representative of how planetary systems exist in general. Our current best guess is that we are finding planetary systems that are in large part different from OUR solar system due to selection bias - our detection methods, which are just barely able to detect exoplanets, favor finding Jupiter-class worlds (bigger is easier to spot), as well as "roasters" - planets that are in a VERY tight orbit with their planet star, that may complete their "year" in a matter of a few days (compared to Earth taking 365 days to orbit the Sun, and even Mercury taking 88 days for its orbit).
In short - we are better at finding really big planets that are really close to their host stars.
We think that there is a selection bias, favoring the discovery of planetary systems with highly eccentric planetary orbits. Still, in spite of that bias, we've found a goodly number of "circular" orbiting worlds, too. (Dan is right on the money - no orbits are perfectly circular. Still, for our purposes - insofar as being able to determine if a world is "pretty much" in a circular orbit, we're doing OK.)
We measure how circular an orbit is by defining its eccentricity. An orbital eccentricity of 0 (zero) is perfectly circular, and a value greater than 1 is an open-ended (parabolic) orbit. Venus has an orbital eccentricity of 0.0068 (let's round that off to 0.007), the most circular orbit in our Solar System, and within a smidge of a perfect circle. Earth has an orbital eccentricity of 0.0167 (rounded off to 0.017) - not elliptical enough to be noticed by anyone except astronomers.
For the sake of this post I'll suggest that an orbital eccentricity of 0.02 or less is "circular enough".
Mars' eccentricity is large enough to directly impact it's climate - 0.0934. For the sake of this post I'll suggest that an orbital eccentricity of 0.1 or greater is "too un-Earthlike".
(How eccentric is too eccentric? We don't know, and this is the kind of stuff we argue about. We will NEVER know until we have a much better handle on what is out there. As far as what types of worlds we may find, we are still in the guessing and dreaming stage.)
Of the 500+ worlds thus far discovered:
~ For 51 planets we have no idea of the planet's orbital eccentricity.
~ For 84 planets we believe that the orbits are pretty much more or less circular, but we can't (yet) nail it down.
~ For 19 planets we have determined to a high level of certainty that the orbital eccentricity is similar to Earth (0.02 or less)
~ For 82 planets we have determined to a high level of certainty that the orbital eccentricity is between that of Earth and Mars (between 0.02 and 0.1)
Of the ~450 planets we can say something about the orbital eccentricity of, about 180 (40%) have orbits that are "pretty circular" (an orbital eccentricity or Mars or better). As we group orbits into different classes of eccentricity (somewhat elliptical, pretty much elliptical, a whole bunch elliptical, and crazy wild elliptical) we find that the planets we've found thus far tend to group into the more circular groups, rather than the most elliptical.
I gotta go tuck in the kids - I'll post more tomorrow about the planetary systems we've found so far.
Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)
danwill,
the reason that the the oddballs like the ones you mentioned (and your sources are significantly outdated, BTW) was that they were easiest to detect using those early methods , as well as easiest to verify due to their short orbital periods. -
I think the smallest extra-solar planet found so far, still measures about 6 times the mass of the Earth, and it is orbiting a red dwarf star. one (still large) planet was found pretty much in the "life zone" of it's red dwarf sun, (which also means very close to the cool star) and in a nearly circular orbit. is that planet a potential candidate for life? maybe, but it is likely tidally locked, which would make such a prospect considerably more unlikely. - these both i knew, hence the reason for my asking the question.
there are no "circular orbits" they are all ellipses, but ours are more circular than some that have been found - oops, did i give away the fact that im not an astronomer? lol
needless to say, both methods only really work if the plane of the solar system in question is perpindicular to us (more or less). but it let's us make reasonable estimates of the numbers of planets among the remainder - again, this i knew, i was looking for additional information, if any was available.
thanks though...
Michael (astronomy.FM)
the last three paragraphs were what i was looking for, i wasnt aware how far our tech was allowing us to currently 'see'.
thanks to you both
alan and others,
gamma proteobacteria are a well-known form of earth-based bacteria with some species already known to use As in their biology, so GFAJ-1 is not as isolated from the rest of biology as one might be led to think by the news reports. As big a discovery as this is it still doesn’t break the unity of the biosphere; it merely extends our knowledge of what it can do.
In essence, the “astrobiologists” were merely announcing an earthly experiment in artificial selection (echoing natural selection—which creationists not only accept, but also described before Darwin did). From the researchers’ report,3 we see they moved an existing microbe from a Californian lake to their lab, then gradually reduced the available phosphate, while feeding the culture arsenate. Some microbes in the population had a pre-existing ability to tolerate As—they were the only microbes to survive. If the As-tolerance mechanism was the result of a mutation, it would likely come at a cost. Therefore if these poison-tolerant microbes were returned to the wild, they would be at a competitive disadvantage compared to their wild cousins—see Evolution in a Petri dish?
found this information posted at 'creation.com'
thought it was interesting that we knew already that some species of bacteria use As in their biology.
let's see, if an organism has evolved to live in an environment that is hostile or fatal to their progenitors, and then is returned to the environment that their progenitors were best suited for, that is somehow "proof" that evolution doesn't occur?
that is a ridiculous statement, and I saw the same bizarre, so-called "argument" on "icons of evolution", but it doesn't stand up at all.
the organisms (bacteria) have evolved to live in a different environment. of course they would be at a disadvantage if put in the environment that the progenitor forms are best adapted to.
that is proof of evolution in action, not proof against.
danwill,
no, it is proof that living organisms have the ability to adapt. nothing at all to do with evolution.
and you missed the point of the post (as you are too busy looking for something else)
lets try again, shall we?
gamma proteobacteria are a well-known form of earth-based bacteria with some species already known to use As in their biology, so GFAJ-1 is not as isolated from the rest of biology as one might be led to think by the news reports
In essence, the “astrobiologists” were merely announcing an earthly experiment in artificial selection (echoing natural selection—which creationists not only accept, but also described before Darwin did).
Some microbes in the population had a pre-existing ability to tolerate As
nobody is arguing the the fact that this changes what we know as life, but the discovery has nothing to do with evolution. a pre-existing ability to adapt is better evidence for a Creator than evolution.
you will never admit that, and will likely respond that i am wrong, with a variety of reasons. none of the reasons will matter though, as evolution is a postulation that has been proven invalid many times over. you simply refuse to see this in your zeal to eliminate the need for a Creator.
carry on danwill, and all the best to you.
no, that is where you are the one that is wrong, .
I challenge you to show one instance (outside of a creationist website).
or i'll make it even easier, outside of the thoroughly discredited AIG and ICR websites
ICR has been repeatedly proven wrong in aprticular, and still keeps posting the same disproven nonsense
but good luck to you, and be well.
(for Japanese)地球にも未知の生命体がまだまだ存在する可能性があるので、地球外に生命体がいる可能性も高くなるってことですね。
ad hominem
For those who are curious as to what Koichi posted, it translates roughly to, "Because there may still be unknown forms of life on Earth, it is, I believe, more likely that there is extraterrestrial life."
Very concise response Michael. To add to why the finding of lifeforms that are atypical here on earth, it presents the possibility that life can exist outside the Goldilocks zone. At this point we can only affirm that life can be exist, in fact thrive given conditions are earth-like. Expanding the scope of what defines what life is, increases the probability that life can exist in a wider range of conditions.
like we didnt already know this da . old news all kinds of stuff is running around on mars like ( the little crab creature ).
lord shadow, you're forgetting logic...
There are two possible explanations for what you believe:
1: NASA supplied this information about the "creatures"
2. The magazines you are reading are full of crap.
The magazines themselves don't have direct research on Mars, so obviously they would not know anything unless they were told by government-controlled science agencies, which would mean it is not being kept secret.
Although, the truth is, none of those "sea shells, crab things, footprints" exist. You're reading idiotic gossip magazines which don't have any real facts in them; they only try to stir up trouble.
nasa needs to come clean about mars . the : the water : the foot prints of creatures : the sea shell : come on come clean nasa.
shado - coming clean... There is water, and we have not found footprints or sea shells.
Further, if we could prove sea shells by the sea shore, don't you think that it would be a WHOLE LOT EASIER to get funding? That, if true, there would be dozens of missions at Mars right now? That, if true, that Congress would be pushing NASA to do more on Mars (rather than shrinking the program)?
but michael, it's so much more fun to believe that the government is covering up all the big things...
:)
Can someone please help me understand the point of trying to prove their was/is life in planets inside our solar system? I just don't see why NASA has to devote so much time and money to prove/disprove this theory. How much money are we wasting to make some scientists look good? I don't see the point if after billions and billions of dollars we discover some microbes in a planet because explaing to me how that will be any benefit to us? I think NASA should be focusing research on other things, maybe improving propulsion or space travel. This whole pursuit to prove there are microbes living in nearby planets, I just don't get it...
What_the:
The pursuit of science in all its forms is important. The discovery of a bacteria that uses arsenic is very important, it just may not seem so today.
There are thousands of life altering discoveries that stem from these seemingly random and inconsequential research lines. If DNA can use arsenic, maybe it could lead to unknown and unfathomable gene therapies a decade from now.
Look at quantum physics. We could all say 'why bother, what a waste of money.' or we could be really excited by correlated photons, wave forms, and quantum teleportation in the use of logic gates.
It was said best above, real science is tiny steps, we are not going to uncover the secrets of the universe in a sudden revelation.
thanks, Bill M NY
Yes, I agree, we all know the famous case of Bigfoot and the efforts made to cover that up, but no one seems to even bother with truth anymore.
Hey "What the" if you can't see the value to our planet in researching an organism that consumes a harmful poison such as arsenic well then...........
what_the_81, I'm a chemistry and pre-pharmacy major. I'm taking microbiology right now; we talk about this kind of thing all the time. You know that antibiotics (or the concepts for them) come from bacteria, right? It takes years to create new antibiotics. And companies don't make new antibiotics, because it's just not profitable for them. But we're running out of effective antibiotics for more and more infections (think MRSA). It would be a scary world if we didn't have antibiotics; medicine would revert at least 100 years. If we can find new bacteria, with totally different lifestyles, perhaps they can give us new antibiotics, or even other drugs. I think that's pretty important :-)
@s-2730132:
It isn't that their is an effort to cover up Big Foot, the problem is that thier is an incredible lack of evidence supporting the existing of Big Foot.
There is casts of foot prints but that is not enough proof and most turned out to be hoaxes.
Didn't we see bigfoot in a freezer? I seem to recall a sasquatchsicle....
Is that what that was? I thought someone had found Grizzly Adams.
Well... that is anticlimactic... this kind of thing is why the general public has lost interest in NASA!!! Great science to be sure, but is it as "earth shattering" as the teased press release first led us to believe? NO! NASA has lost its nerve... it no longer takes risks to expand our horizons as they did in the 1960s with the Apollo missions... it has gotten to the point that the organization (and really our entire culture is this way today) lives solely to avoid potential bad press and therefore no risk is taken for the benefit of humanity.
That could be, in part, because NASA so being slowly neutered, financially, and we no longer have quite the devotion to science as we once had back in the 60's. Sci-fi held many a person captivated back then, and then we started making sci-fi into sci-fact. Now sci-fi is starting to become a vanishing genre all together, cause we are figure out how to make many things that were once though impossible, well, possible.
Kenny,
First off, NASA didn't "tease' anything, the topic of their press release was dead on, the media were the ones that hyped it.
Second, NASA is in the state it is in due to political decisions more than anything else, ever administration decides to gut it once they take over, thus there are very few long term projects that live to see the light of day. The recent Moon vs Mars debate is a prime example.
Seriously, how would you have NASA get its 'nerve' back? Yes we went to the moon in the 60's but we also didn't know about ice deposits near the poles or many other interesting features. We just picked a fairly flat spot and shot for it. We learned some stuff about the rocks, but I'd say not a ton else (I could of course be really wrong). I think by nerve you want NASA to go out and do some grandiose, and perhaps fairly meaningless gesture.
Discoveries often happen in their own time. No matter how much 'nerve' NASA has, it can't force a discovery of life on another planet, or habitable worlds around other stars. What does accelerate that process is money and talent. Our country certainly isn't funding the sciences as much as it could, and many of our talented people go into other fields. I'm a physics PHD student and I'd been told for years that the real money was in finance. Turns out many of our bright physicists/mathematicians etc. were writing the algorithms that helped contribute to our economic turn.
No s, this is actually quite amazing. It widens the amount of potential habitual planets. Perhaps ones even outside the goldilock zone, hence, increasing the chances of life elsewhere. Also, due to he fact that ther may be life as we don't know it, I think that increases the chances of extraterrestrial life even more. so no, it's kind of cool. It's not an alien amoeba, but common, we all know that life exists elsewhere...I dont know, seems obvious to me. I mean there are a lot of planets and stars...there is commonality in the elements and in higher molecular formations...methane is methane no matter where you find it. Same with water, hydrogen. Seems pretty logical life is as well, just rarer like all more complex molecules and functionaries are. The only thing interesting from that standpoint about alien life then, to us as a species, is animal evolution, intelligence, or. DIFFErENCES in the molecular machinery. So we can see commonality and the spread of difference in the core parts..to fain more truth about nature. Given we will likely not find animals or intelligence any time soon, it makes sense to focus on the molecular prime. But if we find it's the same as our life then it isn't very interesting, we learn very little, just that life exists elsewhere, but then again, we already know that...I mean not absolutely but we kinda do. But if we find life not like our own we gain understanding through the contrast and comparison..we get to essences that can even help is here technologically on earth..hence, in so far that that is the goal, understanding and scientific plus technological progress, this finding is quite significant. As significant as finding similar life somewhere else. More significant than finding identical life as we know it elsewhere.
So it is not trivial by those standards. Now perhaps alien life would be radically different and hence more significant but that is a preliminary assumption. For all we know most life is phosphate based and arsenic only when more primitive, disallowing more complex life forms which can only be stable in large forms with phosphate as opposed to arsenic. So although it is entertaining to find alien alien life, once we realize that we are not alone, discoveris like these mitt actually be more significant, because it has implications for alien life. After all if we find DNA to be as universal as water and only the divergence in organism forms to be variable, discovering other life forms not based on DNA, by far the minority in such a hypothetical future,nit would be much more exciting to discover arsenic lifeforms as opposed to simply alien life, which in the hypothetical we wouldhave established to be mostly phosphate based.
Its only our conservatism in making guesses that disallows us the firm assertion that life exists elsewhere, as per scientific method, but in my view, it's pretty obvious. And from that perspective, this to be a little bit less if not equally significant as alien life. On your frustration with journalism and how it often is handled I agree, totally, but I don't wantto comment on inanities. On your assertion of significance I disagree. Well not really, more aptly put, I just see no way I can agree with such an assertion as per the logic indicated in my post.
This is huge news, I know many people won't read the article but if this proves that life doesn't have to come from the "primordial ooze" we believed it must start from that opens up many options for exploration and ideas about "life" but I'm sure people will bring the bible into a scientific discussion.
While we may not find, humanoid life, it'll be great to begin to learn about the other forms of organisms that are in the cosmos.
With the thought, the reality can be made now. We have Great intellectual - sci-fi power and we are at an apex in history, again. If our hearts do not balance our minds, we will be back to ground zero, soon. Just because MAN can do something, does not necessarily mean he should. When we don't have wisdom, guiding our actions, and close scrutiny of our own egos and the motivations behind them, we are in peril. And when people have no CLEAR direction to WHERE they are going, after their stint on EARTH, then there is no respect for what is GREATER than man - and everything becomes his tool, including other humans.
Be careful- any discussion of science is going to make the religious conservatives get their shorts in a bunch!
Thats where they should be or around their heads. I watched another scientist on the history channel who has created life in a petrie dish also. One would have to say the creatures who survive in environments such as the volcanic vents on the ocean floor and environments that cannot substain our type of life have already proved we are not alone in the universe.
I think the religious conservatives are Aliens too! Someone check their diets for arsenic. If you don't find any.... I am not going to finish that thought...
Very nice, Lynn. And so progressive, too.
Which is why I have always said scientists are SO superior to us religious fools.
You know, you're right about that Religious Concho! Especially the fools part.......
Alright, we're probably all adults here, so let's act like adults. Or... FIGHT TO THE DEATH
Oh pssht, leave the fighting to folks who care about arsenic munching life forms.
What about the religious liberals? No equal billing here? I did not know all liberals were agnostic.
Progressive?
Typical. Any comment that might put religion in a poor light is automatically deemed as heretical by Rush, Beck and their minions.
And to address your sarcasm... Science IS superior to religion in every single way. Science deals with reality.... Not faith and fear.
Aren't progressives supposed to be all loving and tolerant and such? Then why go start something that will rile up someone?
Aren't Christians supposed to be all loving and tolerant and such? Then why go start something that will rile up someone.
You do realize that it's typically the conservatives who prefer to fund NASA and DoD research, right? It's the liberals who decide that NASA should no longer focus on space exploration and cancel the U.S.' entire planned future for manned space flight. I am an engineer professionally and a scientist academically and work with many of both and can assure you that most of them are quite conservative. The reason for this is that engineers and (perhaps to a lesser extent) scientists tend to think logically on a regular basis, as opposed to the liberal-dominated majors like English, history, philosophy, etc. who don't even know what a proof or an integral looks like.
Personally im not religious id just like to say this :
Why cant something be real jsut beacuse it's faith based? A persons faith can have massive effects on emotions and other non tangible things, seems to me that if it can affect sumones brain so much, and if the brain controls the body, then faith can have tangible effects in our world...just a thought
So Fain - "What do you mean by Science is superior to religion in every single way" and "Science deals with reality... Not faith and fear"? How do you define science and religion?
Now there are several definitions of science and religion but here are two definitions I got from a dictionary.
Science: The systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Religion: A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Now if you go by these definitions you may find that a lot of what we call science today is more like religion than science. For example take Sir Francis Crick's theory of "Directed Panspermia". The scientific evidence showing the complexity of the evolution of DNA didn't match up with his preexisted ideas, so he came up with a theory with very little, if any, scientific evidence back it up. And now there are a bunch of very intelligent people who believe this theory to have merit (take Richard Dawkins for example) while there is still very little, if any, evidence to back it up. Until the Intelligent Aliens come down and say, "yeah, we put the DNA here", it remains science fiction.
Now here's one more example. The theory of evolution of human life. We still cannot even come close to finding enough evidence to back up the theory that we somehow evolved from simple organisms. We actually have verifiable evidence that DNA is breaking down and de-evolving with each generation. And yet there are still scientists and high school science teachers who will go to their grave, 100% confident that evolution is a fact and not a theory.
It sounds like religion to me... Stand by your beliefs and have faith that it will eventually be proved right.
Ignorance is Bliss.
I just wanted to to add my two cents to CoolCat's great point. While we're on the definition of faith let's look at the Biblical definition as well. According to Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That sounds like much of the scientific research today. NASA spends billions of dollars in space programs hoping to find some kind of substance (life forms), looking for evidence of life they've never seen.
As Sam neil famously said in event horizon (stupid movie and in bad taste) .."we won't need eyes where we are going"f
Space programs are important. We're already destroying our planet, what future do our descendants have with a broken planet? We can migrate to other planets, in fact we can terraform Mars into a viable planet where we can breathe, run, live, and work for our families. Of course such a project will never be able to be completed in our lifetimes, but it is possible to make Mars a viable planet for our race...and secure our children's children's future...
To So Fain, and to the rest…
To say that “science is superior to religion in every way” is inept and foolhardy. There is science fact and science fiction. A lot of what we believe to be fact is actually unproven. And like you, many uneducated sheep follow along and believe whatever the newest fade is. Fact…things do evolve…we have evidence of that with dog breeding within the past century. However, it has never been proven as fact that we evolved from monkeys or that we came to existence from an explosion in space and time. It’s what we scientists call theory. Theory is NOT fact. However, most scientists enjoy the fact that uneducated people believe their theories to be fact so that they can pretend to be of some use to the human race.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is just that…a theory. It has yet to be proven. But the sheep in the world believe all of this to be fact. I will give you some facts…
Fact…A man named Socrates existed long ago. We know this to be fact because there are over 100 documented and eyewitness accounts telling us that Socrates existed.
If we believe that he existed because of 100 accounts telling us of his existence, then we would absolutely believe something to be fact if that something had over 500 documented and eyewitness accounts to back it up. Wouldn’t you agree, So Fain…you who claim to know that science is fact and religion is faith.
One more fact…There are over 500 documented and eyewitness accounts that Jesus Christ was seen three days after he was crucified in resurrected form. Would you call that mass hysteria? Was it mass hysteria that Socrates existed?
It was just stupidity to say that science is fact and religion is only faith. A true scientist believes in fact and not with the sheep regarding theory. And a true scientist does not discount faith and the facts of religion.
Wow.
I was avoiding this thread - I don't need the grief - but I'm very surprised that someone with the handle "Science Teacher" is so wrong about what science is.
Oh? Like what? Can you name any unproven facts? Just how do you define "fact"? If it ain't proven, it ain't a fact.
Do you know what a scientific theory is? "Just a theory" may be correct in common, vulgar, vernacular usage, but it is NOT how science defines the term: "A Scientific Threory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world."
What you mean to say, if I may attempt to interpret, is "Darwin's Theory of Evolution is NOT a valid scientific theory."
(And if that is what you mean, you had better be ready to back up that statement with, you know, "facts".)
Right. The ONLY explanation of why Darwinian evolution is the dominant scientific theory is because all biologists are sheep. That's the best argument you have?
Do you teach your students that they are sheep?
(And I will ignore the obvious analogy of Christ the Shepard - you have pitched too easy a softball here.)
I am hopeful that your handle - "Science Teacher" - is a bit of a stretch. I am hopeful that you are not the person teaching science to classes of children. Or, I'm hopeful that you are up way too late grading papers, and that your post was done in haste.
If, however, you are going to teach SCIENCE, then YOU had better get your facts straight!
~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)
Michael,
I did say that a lot of what people believe to be fact is unproven. Not that an actual fact is unproven. There are many who believe that Darwin's theories are 100% fact and that's just not the case.
I have my FACTS straight and I teach my students to be open to the possibility that the science of yesterday may not be the exact science of tomorrow.
I was addressing So Fain because it makes me angry that people like him/her can make a comment that science is superior to religion in every way.
That is just not the case. So Fain went on to say that science is based on fact where religion was based on fear and faith. And I wanted to make sure that him/her understood that alot of what "the sheep" believe to be scientifical proven facts are in fact theories.
And you've proven that you can read the dictionary and that you are simply a child with your sheperd's comment regarding Christ.
you are entitled to your own opinion... I just hope you arent teaching faith based anything within the realms of a biology class, which should have nothing to do with teaching religion.
I would hope you know theres religion classes, and then theres science classes. 2 completely different classes.
If you want to teach that its not entirely true that the big bang happened but its the leading theory, thats cool. After all certain string theorists are starting to believe in a bubble universe instead. So really, thats all up for grabs at this point anyways.
Evolution... I wouldnt touch that though. Its the main focus of a biology class. You dont have to think its true, but you shouldnt waver from that in a biology class. Its why we have medicines like anti biotics and why we have to upgrade them. At a bacterial level macro evolution has been proven. Its just not at a level thats visually documented with for example mammals or reptiles. Again you dont have to believe in it... but at least know your place as a science teacher, and just teach it.
I've flipped through a religious science book before. It made me cringe with its broad generalizations and the way it depicted skeptics. Not skeptics of religion exactly, but skeptics of what was presented in that "science" book as fact (as opposed to theory). Basically, "if you don't believe what we say, then you don't love Jesus." I didn't realize these books were that bad. I hope for the children's sakes that teachers in Christian schools know better than to teach directly out of those type of books.
@ Science Teacher;
I made an assumption based on your nom de plume - I now realize that if my assumption is off, then I owe you an apology.
I assumed that you are a professional teacher, that somewhere there is a classroom of eager people who are excited about what you may teach them.
If, however, you are an informal instructor (museum docent, volunteer, etc), then I spoke too hastily - I'm sorry. My post was written to address the expectations a student would have (and has paid for) for an educator who has mastered their area of instruction.
If you ARE a professional teacher, then my comments stand.
A science teacher who does not know what a scientific theory is, is much like an electrical engineer who is sloppy about the difference between a battery and a capacitor.
It isn't a matter of reading the dictionary (although that is a good start). It's understanding and teaching the concept. I am a teacher (and a researcher). I also teach teachers - I am an instructor for teacher certification programs. I run into far too many science teachers, people who have been responsible for educating children for decades, who do not know what the basics of science are. Often that is not their fault - a science teacher is needed, and they were brave enough to volunteer when no one else was available; but still that does not mean that we have to like a system which perpetuates science ignorance by denying our children instructors who have the tools they require to succeed.
My comment points out an irony in what you said. "You people are all sheep", and "I am a lamb of God" - doesn't that make ALL of us sheep?
I am NOT criticizing your IDEAS. I am offering a critique of your TECHNIQUE. Say that evolution "is just a theory", a patent misuse of the scientific term, and you have no hope of influencing someone who knows what a scientific theory is. If, however, you say, "The Theory of Evolution is flawed, and here is why..." well, now you have my attention.
There is a Theory of Gravity, as ascertained by Newton. I can not say that gravity is "just a theory" and make gravity (and Newton) go away. Someone could, however, point out the theory's flaws, and supplant the original theory with another that better fits the observed facts. And someone did, hence Einstein's Theory of Relativity. (And yet, even tho Einstein's work is a more precise understanding of how gravity works, NASA still uses Newtonian physics to steer missions to other worlds - Newton is "good enough" for that type of work.)
Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)
I remember from my Science and Technical Values course, that scientific fraud for fame, fortune, and prize, is very prevalent. The solution, replicate it againa and again, with independent verifiers nearby.
So the solution to non-science (or bad science) is science. Sounds good.
no paul, what jbird is saying is that the solution is to independently verify the results, which is standard science.
if the results can't be reproduced and verified, then the person who submitted the bad results either made a mistake, or worse, fraud and fakery.
in any case, if someone else can't reproduce the results, then it is bad science.
While this is interesting, I was betting that NASA had discovered that dinosaurs and early humans are coexisting on Venus thus proving the "New earth creationist theory" while simultaneously refuting the notion that there is intelligent life on earth.
Actually the intelligence of life on Earth seems to be eroding.. could be the contamination by all that filthy lucre??
No, Lucre is just the result of the base problem: Greed. Without greed, the desire to create a more lucretive system than the barter system would not have exsisted
lol, good one.
The genepool is not being turned over fast enough. We are not losing the ones that stare at the sky waiting for lighting to hit them.
I love the article! I reserve my judgements on whether or not arsenic can sustain life; the idea and experimentation is too new.
I agree. I would like to see these experiments repeated independently by other laboratories. Unfortunately, these researchers may be suffering from the "winner's curse" where they are the first to discover a phenomenon, but their credibility is in doubt because no one else has observed it yet. We'll just have to wait and see.
what realy concerns me is if we found life,intelgent life what makes you think that they would want our poisen that is our way of life,you no war killing and so on jerry palmer
As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park: "Life always finds a way."
How presumptuous of man to think they are the only life form in all the Galaxies. I often wonder why we would even start to believe that we are the only ones, NO matter how you think we got started. If you believe we evolved then how can we NOT think that evolution is occurring everywhere? If you believe in Creation then why would you think that God, or Gods, would stop with such a mediocre race? I think that Vanity and arrogance has put us on the path to self destruction and can only hope somewhere there is another life form that will do better than we have done.
Not that I disagree, but where did this rant come from?
-Luvenia48 - Man is presumptuous because right now we are the most intelligent life form that we have any knowledge of. It is hard for us to think of something that is outside of our box. For example, many people's picture of intelligent alien life (if they believe in their existence) is most often a humanoid. Why? Because we are limited in our ability to think outside of what we know.
And I agree with you. Vanity and arrogance has put us on the path to self destruction. How could we, mere humans, actually believe that we evolved from simple organisms (which has very little evidence) rather than trust that we were created by God for a purpose (which has evidence)? We are too proud to admit that we are not our own and that we do not have all the answers. It is always vanity and arrogance that leads to destruction and failure.
I can't wait til extraterrestrial life is proven and the major religions of the world are forced to derive some alternate creation myth. It should make for good reading. It may go somthing like this; On a planet's moon, far far away, God created a creature incapable of evil. He called it bacteria, and it was good.
actually bacteria are capable of some very evil things, from mankind's perspective, but you must remember.. evil is in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as a moral absolute.
@blahblah-2632236, ah yes, and what a fantastic day that would be when we'd all find out that along with our extra-terrestrial friends, we are all chemical accidents and that there is nothing but man's feeble, paltry and subjective laws to keep us with morality and ethical behavior, no God to give us meaning beyond a hand to mouth existence on an increasingly man-raped earth. suicides, depression and mass-scale anarchic behavior running rampant across the planet with only our new gods, scientists to dictate what is/was and should be. What a joyous day, ripe with reason to celebrate when that day comes. All hail Science, destroyer of God, destroyer of the human soul and champion of reason alone. Can't wait for the sun from that day to peak over the horizon line to shine its majesty upon our ignorant religious-minded, chemical-ridden, organic walking corpses.
@maxwellSmart-2747328 while I'm quite aware of the sarcasm in your post, in all seriousness, plenty of people survive without a God to tell them to act good. Plenty of people lead fulfilling lives and are kind to their neighbors without a God to give them a pat on the back for being decent. Plenty of philosophers have derived ethical systems that don't require religion as a guideline. And frankly, when one considers the evils done in the name of religious ethics, one can truly wonder whether it's all it's cracked up to be.
Science will never truly replace religion because so many really would rather be told what to think and how to live. For them they will always keep religion close because it's easier. But there are some people out there that would rather think for themselves. Ask what is good and what is true. They may not always get it right, but it's a valid way of life.
MaxwellSmart so the only way that man can have a meaningful life is with religion? Are you serious, sorry but morals, having a purpose in life are not dependant on beliving in a magical being that waved his fingers and created mankind.
Spirituality doesnt have to have anything to do with religion, has the concept of improving oneself thru education, asking questions about life, helping those around you as well as the environment we live in?
The only evil in thei world is greed and selfishness, man kind is a baby race and religion in itself has done nothing to help man grow up. Just look at all the conflict between religions, just look how the supposed religious right try to force thier beliefs upon others.
Sorry but man would be so much better without religion, or at least where religion loses its I am saved you are damned thus I am better and you follow a false belief.
Why cant we all just bleive what we want and not harm others, instead accept each other differences and work together to better our species.
Till greed, jealousy and selfishness disappear and when we ignore our differences (which are just a delusion) and realize we are one species on a tiny planet in a vast Universe we are going to be anchored in the new "Dark Ages"
The Universe and the future are what await us, we just have to grow up in order to move out of the house (aka Earth).
Science will not destroy the Human soul, it will just remove the blood stain taints of all religons. Also here is a point to think about, if a religion cannot change or adjust to be able to exist in the world as our knowledge of things increases then can that religions God really exist? One would think that a God would create a religion that can grow and keep up with mans knowledge otherwise that religion was a creation of man and stuck in the time frame of its creation.
Pirate C: Why should I not be selfish? I will probably be done in a few decades, I really don't care about family. And the universe itself will blow itself out in a few billion years.
Our species achieved its greatness because of greed and selfishness - survival of the fittest - and to let go of that proven mechanism for a silly moral one makes no sense.
It is true that many people have been good with no God to steer them towards "morality", but it is also true that some scientists have strayed towards evil in search of their own version of truth - case in point recent revelations on how American scientists infected people with diseases to see how the illness would progress untreated. If that was not evil I don't know what is.....
"Blablabla" is what GOD is likely to say when you are trying to explain away your sinful way of life.
If I am wrong you have nothing to worry about and can continue in your error....
But if I am right ... you'll have HELL to pay.
That, Skid, is what we call "Mad Science". I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just adding to your comment.
@Bobby Charles 1
That's right! Wave your finger at the TV camera while clutching the Bible / Koran / whatever in your other hand, blather on about Hellfire and Damnation, you're going straight to hell, etc. and just watch the money come pouring in.....
And you wonder why people choose not to believe?
as far as the moral decay due to science idea the guy up there threw out i have a rebuttle...confucianism, not a religion just a moral code, it deals with morality not mortality and makes no mention of afterlifes or gods
-Blahblah - Are you joking or serious about the aliens coming down thing? If you actually believe they exist, congratulations, you are part of a religion. People who actually think that aliens exist are part of a religion because there is not enough evidence of their existence.
-Bobby Charles 1 - I am not sure what religion you are, but I hope you don't think that you are a Christian. If you were a Christian, you would know the teachings of Jesus, and thus you would know how to properly communicate with people intellectually and with love.
-Shavera and Pirate C - You claim that men have come up with morals and ethics apart from religion, but that is impossible. Everyone has been affected by religion. Unless one was somehow raised completely separate from all other people who had some sort of religion or ethical belief system already in place, their ideas would be skewed.
And also... people love to talk about the atrocities that were committed in the name of religion and yet they seem to forget the ones that were committed in the name of atheism and/or science. For example, far more people have been exterminated in the name of evolution and communism in the 20th century, than ever in the name of a religion.
I am not waiving my finger at anyone.
Bla Bla Bla brought the subject up I simply commented with my Personal scientific evaluation.
The only monitary gain I recieve for my spritual / scientific beliefs are by the Grace of GOD himself and not due to any TV program I am on.
So it is like I said before If I am Wrong = No Problem!
But I would not wish Hell on anybody even though some seem to lead life as if they look forward to the trip.
Ro 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
See that's what worries me about religious zealots, they seem to be the only ones that cannot control themselves without a fear of God making them behave. I don't know if there's a God and if there is what role a God may actually play. I don't figure it's that important because in my view the goal is to make life as livable as possible.
I am not particularly religious and my attitude is that I strive to make life on this rock as tolerable as possible.I know this is likely my only opportunity and it is in my best interest to try to create some sort of civil relationship with my fellow man/woman. I am not naive, I recognize that there are people that are, for lack of a better word, evil. I don't expect that the presence of religion or a God will change their behavior.
bobby, if I am wrong, I only risk myself, but if you are wrong, and expect god to show up and fix everything, instead of your acting as a proper steward of life on the planet, then you risk not only the human race but most higher life forms on this planet.
-SteveJ- This is just in response to your last sentence. There are cases where a belief in God has changed people. Saul of Tarsus went from a persecutor of Christians to one of the greatest advocates and teachers for Christians.
And it can change you too. Not only can it help you have the best life possible in this lifetime, but it can give you the hope of an even better life afterward. Who wouldn't want that?
coolcat, and all that is asked is to hope for the end of the world so that you can be "rewarded" when you can't come back to tell anyone about it.
I just saw some pack of idiots driving RVs around with "the end of the world is may22" the bible guarantees it"
the entire "end of the world propfecy" thing is hideous, destructive and is in and of itself a force of evil and destruction because everyone that is a "true believer" will expect every bad thing that occurs to be part of the end and will do nothing to prevent it.
and when it turns out that there is no big daddy in the sky to fix anything, then all of the human races dreams , hopes and aspirations will have been for nothing.
end of the world prophecy is poison to the human race.
I love it when non believers want to paint Christians as the problem.
That is a hoot.
GOD created it all and science would benefit if trusting GOD who was there on day one and put it all together,
Regarding the alien life on earth.... As my fourteen year old sone put it " it can't be alien if it is from earth"
It just shows GOD wisdom is greater than any person's science will ever be.
Coolcat,
Thanks for the reply. I have no doubt that there is power in belief. It can be used for good and for unspeakable evil. I think my point was that the actual existence of a God has not prevented evil or people perpetrating evil acts. The notion that the only thing that keeps mankind from destroying itself is an archane belief in an invisible deity is somewhat disturbing. I would much rather believe that the majorityof human beings would understand that our continued existence depends on some level of cooperation and respect for life.
Personally, I live my life to try to make it as enjoyable as possible here. I don't concern myself with the though of an afterlife because its immaterial. If there is fine, if not, it does not matter much. To my mind religious dogmas are frequenty hipocritical. We are supposed to love our fellow man so we can benefit. The principle of an afterlife is a completely self serving endeavor. People preach their religious beliefs not to save others, but to try to assure themselves a seat on the bus to the preferred afterlife.
But that's only my belief. To each his own.
bobby, it's not just christians, muslims have the same "the end is near" mindset. its extremely dangerous for the future of humanity. but not all christians are responsible, many good christians take the idea of being good stewards of the earth seriously
one of the utterly deranged things that I hear people claim is that "god wouldn't let that happen" how do you/they know that? you/they don't, they just don't want it to be true, so they claim that god will prevent it.
you claim that "god was there from day one", when was that ? 6000 years ago? (BTW, according to jewish calender, the exact date would be 5770 lunar calender years ago) the evidence is overwhelmingly against that number. but that does not mean that there is no god, it just means that the literal interpretation of the bible is wrong (or maybe it means you are interpreting it wrong?)
In truth I don't want to see everyone's religious crutch ripped away. To prey on the irrational fears of Hell that have been forcefully placed in people's subconscious since birth is about as close to evil as you can get BobbySearles. To me, Hell is being surrounded by idiots like you, who take some of the most thoughtful writings of mankind, attribute them all to God, and then proceed to misinterpret every single one of them in an effort to obtain the glory of heaven for themselves. I'm sure you have many good qualities but spreading the illusion of hell is not one of them. Just remember that your religion stems from the belief that if your illusion of God is more powerful than someone else's, you will feel more justified than them and be able to do whatever God tells you to. For instance if two cities share a well and in a time of drought there is only enough water for one city, the one who believes God wants them to drink the water will go to further ends to get it.
ummmm . . . and how is it that you are privilidged with all this secret information?
I guess it's because I write about this stuff. I'll bet that anyone with a science-related blog nowadays can sign up for the embargoed information, provided that they can assure the folks at the publications that they're reputable and can keep a secret. Some journalists, however, avoid agreeing to embargoes just because they're afraid it can tie them up from reporting on a hot story. They'd prefer to figure the stories out for themselves - but that can sometimes lead to incomplete or inaccurate accounts. Which is why the embargo system was set up in the first place. The same goes for books, records, even movies. (Like the "Harry Potter" preview that our film editor was allowed to attend.)
Maybe arsenophiles are what we observe on Martian meteorite ALH84001, which has been hypothesized by some to indicate evidence of life on Mars.
ALH84001 possible fossilized bacteria image: http://www.genetologisch-onderzoek.nl/wp-content/image_upload/mars.jpg
I don't want to sound arsenophobic, but I don't want those things on our planet.
They could undermine our defenses and whatnot.
Believe for I come in peace. Soon you will see.
Bah weep grahna weep ninii bon. Or should I say, nanu nanu?
I believe it's"Claatu Baratu Nicto"
Well gee whiz. I was hoping for something my concrete. I'll admit, I got a little lost in the translation but I was looking for those guys with almond shaped eyes and no mouth. My college science professor' explained how we came from the sea. Ocean waves formed puddles and then, out of that, one cell life began to grow. Pretty soon, those cell linked together and they formed polymers. Those polymers, came together, as one and life walked, out of the water. And then the next thing I know, people are living, breathing human beings, who are, so mean to each other; that wish each other dead. Just think, if someone would have had bleach back then, the human race would have been flush down the toilet.
We humans just make me chuckle. We act as if we know almost everything about everything, but the more we learn we find we know very little about much at all. Why would we think for a second that "life" would have to be the same on other planets as it is here? We already knew there are plants and animals that live in sulfer-spewing cracks deep in the oceans where life (as we know it) should be impossible. So when we look at other planets and analyze them for their ability to sustain life, we are ONLY thinking in terms of how WE (egocentric humans) define life.
We can create a megacomputer that can do millions of computations a second, but we can't create a simple living blade of grass or a one-celled animal.
Biology, i.e. life, arises from chemistry and physics, both of which are universal. There is no reason that life on other planets shouldn't take in and put out the same stuff in the same ways that life here on Earth does. Heck, it might even look like us! (So to speak). The thing is, as this story attempts to show, we haven't even discovered all of the life here on Earth, nor do we fully understand that which we have already discovered. To take it even further, we have yet to (cannot?) completely uncover and understand all of the laws and nuances of physics and chemistry, and thus biology, so we may be perpetually surprised by what we find swimming in some new puddle, or climbing out of it, regardless of what planet it's on.
Google it, scientists have already created artificial life thru DNA encoding, just wait another 10-20 years, bioengenier suits and such will become common place.
Pirate C, I'll give it another 50-100 years. Advances in life science are always the slowest because unlike robotics, weapons sciences, and chemistry tampering with life is "playing god" and must fight even harder to progress than any other field of science.
" life, arises from chemistry and physics, both of which are universal"
And how do you know that? We cannot yet prove or disprove that they in fact are universal, and that is my point. EVERYTHING we view and every conclusion we reach is from OUR point of view, and it is at best limited.
I guess you could say that I don't know that. But I think one would include "universal" physical and chemical laws in the definition of "universe." If every point of the universe is the same as every other one, why should chemistry or physics work differently there than here? If there are no such thing as universal laws, then not only is our reasoning seriously flawed, but also, perhaps, the very concept of reason itself.
Maybe the whole idea of "universal laws" is an assumption....
It is always an assumption till someone discovers the next assumption
I assume that is the universal law
The laws themselves? Absolutely, they're assumptions. We didn't design the universe from scratch, so everything we deduce about it is our best guess, even so-called laws. Everything is based on observation, and it's been proven that there is no such thing as an independent observer, so we also effect what we observe (there are some who say we actually create physical laws through our act of studying them!). I'm just saying that however the universe actually works, it works the same here as it does anywhere else within the universe, whether or not we actually know how it works, and regardless of the actual state of things wherever we might be talking about. And even chaos and nonsense follow some sort of rules, though the only rule might be that there are no rules.
If true, I think this should be a big red flag of caution to us making contact with other worlds environments.
I think this knowledge would make contamination or cross-infestation capable of destroying each other life forms existence. i.e. they could actually be toxic to each other and cause each others demise.
It's a COOK BOOK !!!!!!
"To Serve Man ... a Dish of Arsenic."
rick - THAT was Hilarious. Great episode.
Wow,I use that phrase alot,usually when watching politcal discussions...most people look at me strangely when I do.Pretty cool to see that some other people get it.
"Arsenic and Old Lake."
Too bad about the silly hype. Still this is science at its best and truest. Someone comes up with an idea and test it. Then announce. Then see if the result can be replicated (which is where we are now)
I was hoping for something more dramatic but isn't it wonderful that we have the intellectual curiosity to keep exploring our universe