E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
R. Hoover / Journal of Cosmology
An image created using a field-emission scanning electron microscope shows a coiled filament that was found within a carbonaceous meteorite. The scale bar indicates a length of 20 microns.
Last updated 7 p.m. ET March 8:
A NASA researcher's claim that organisms from outer space have been found within a rare class of meteorites certainly sparked a lot of comments over the weekend, from experts on astrobiology and microbiology as well as from the public at large. Some of the commentators have been pretty scathing. David Morrison, senior scientist for the NASA Astrobiology Institute, told me in an e-mail that the paper really should have been published on April Fool's Day. Pharyngula's P.Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota at Morris, said "this work is garbage" and voiced surprise that anyone was taking it seriously.
Now the Journal of Cosmology, which published the much-debated paper by NASA biologist Richard Hoover, has added a batch of commentaries from a variety of researchers and others. Here are some of the folks in the journal's lineup:
- Cody Youngbull of the University of Arizona's Biodesign Institute notes that Hoover's claims have "gone viral, with major media news sources and Internet blogs all carrying reports of this story. And so too the experts, for whom this information is not new, who have been monitoring the accounts of fossils in these same meteorites since 1961, have something to get excited about. ... This is because, while the elemental and mineral composition data remains identical to prior accepted reports, the morphological data far exceeds anything yet shown on the subject."
- Harrison Schmitt, the Apollo 17 scientist-astronaut who went from walking on the moon to serving in the U.S. Senate and who is now a researcher at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, says he can't pass judgment on the research itself. Instead, he wonders "why many do not seem to want life to have originated independently on Earth. ... We just have to figure out how it all happened."
- Patrick Godon, an astrophysicist at Villanova University, says Hoover "presents firm evidence" that fossil microbes are embedded within the meteorites, but he says it's "debatable" whether the microbes came from Earth or from somewhere else in outer space.
- Elena Pikuta, a microbiologist from the University of Alabama at Huntsville who has collaborated with Hoover, says the study "represents a sensational discovery which will have the potential to change our understanding on the origin of biosphere." The findings from the meteorites were "analyzed and interpreted according to the current standards in science using highly sensitive laboratory techniques," she says.
- Tulane University physicist Frank Tipler, author of the controversial book "The Physics of Immortality," says that "although Hoover has done as much as is possible with his small sample, we cannot yet conclude that he has indeed seen fossil cyanobacteria."
The journal may have decided against immediately publishing some of the responses it received, based on the missing numbers in the order of the commentaries. As of late today, No. 15 out of 21 was still missing — and No. 11, attributed to Cardiff University astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasinghe and carrying the subtitle "A Vindication of Panspermia," wasn't yet displayed on the page.
Generally speaking, the journal's commentaries don't provide the kind of hard-hitting criticism that some of the better-known outside experts on microbiology have been voicing in other forums. But they do suggest that Hoover's claims will continue to be debated rather than going immediately into the trash can.
Update for 11 a.m. ET: In a statement distributed by the SpaceRef website, one of NASA's top scientists says the space agency does not support Hoover's findings. Here's the word from Paul Hertz, chief scientist of the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington:
"NASA is a scientific and technical agency committed to a culture of openness with the media and public. While we value the free exchange of ideas, data and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry, NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts. This paper was submitted in 2007 to the International Journal of Astrobiology. However, the peer review process was not completed for that submission. NASA also was unaware of the recent submission of the paper to the Journal of Cosmology or of the paper's subsequent publication. Additional questions should be directed to the author of the paper."
Meanwhile, Universe Today's Nancy Atkinson got in touch with Chris McKay, an astrobiologist at NASA's Ames Research Center. Here's a sampling from McKay's comments:
"The implication of these results is that the meteorite hosted a liquid water environment in contact with sunlight and high oxygen. ... Richard Hoover is a careful and accomplished microscopist so there is every reason to believe that the structures he sees are present and are not due to contamination. If these structures had been reported from sediments from a lake bottom there would be no question that they were classified correctly as biological remains."
McKay also acknowledged, however, that the structures could turn out to be "chance shapes" that just happen to look like pieces of an organism. That kind of interpretation was put forward to explain the "nanofossils" seen in a meteorite from Mars back in 1996. Moreover, if the structures do turn out to be cyanobacteria, and they're not contaminants, it'd be hard to explain in biological terms how they could survive on a meteorite in space.
Update for 11:30 a.m. ET: One of the questions that has come up is, "If they really did find alien life, why isn't this research being published by one of the big scientific journals, such as Science or Nature, rather than some little online publication that's on the brink of going out of business?" Lana Tao, managing editor for the Journal of Cosmology, addressed that question in an e-mailed statement:
"The Journal of Cosmology has received e-mails asking why Dr. Hoover's paper was not published in Science or Nature. We are aware that individuals who may or may not be associated with these publications are posting ad hominem attacks, which essentially wish the public to believe that if Dr. Hoover's article was really important it would have been published by these other journals. These are tantamount to schoolyard taunts by jealous children.
"1) First, Dr. Hoover's article was an original contribution and had not been submitted to these two periodicals.
"2) Secondly, both Science and Nature have a nasty history of rejecting extremely important papers, some of which later earned the author's a Noble Prize [sic]. Use Google keywords search for a wealth of info. Nature magazine admits to this, though they put a positive spin on these rejections.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/full/425645a.html
"3) Editors at Science have been accused of using the Bible to make editorial decisions by scientists such as Dr. Gil Levin (who devised the famous NASA Viking Mars Experiments).
"4) It is a matter of public record that the organization which publishes science magazine have engaged in illegal anti-competitive practices designed to harm the Journal of Cosmology. The continuing success of JOC poses a competitive threat to their business model. We should not be surprised their 'hand puppets' are complaining that JOC published this article, and not them.
"5) Science and Nature are in the business of making money. The Journal of Cosmology is free, open access, and is in the business of promoting science.
"6) Science and Nature protect the status quo, and have a history of rejecting great papers.
"7) In less than 2 years, the Journal of Cosmology has become one of the top online science journals, with nearly a million hits for January. Our mission is to advance science.
"8) The ad hominem attacks and complaints by those say Dr. Hoover's article should have been published in these other periodicals, and not JOC, are just sour grapes and should not be taken seriously.
"9) We have repeatedly offered to publish critical commentary. We are still waiting."
Update for noon ET: Bad Astronomy's Phil Plait says he's come to the conclusion that "Hoover's claims are wrong," based on many of the factors we've been talking about (criticism of methods from microbiologists, questions about the venue for publication, scant peer review and lack of NASA support, etc.). One of the more interesting angles comes from his e-mail exchange with Penny Boston, an astrobiologist and geologist at New Mexico Tech who is an expert on extremophiles in caves. Her view is that it's virtually impossible to rule out the possibility of earthly contamination just by looking at something in a rock sample, due to the ubiquity of life on Earth. Here's a sample quote:
"Rocks, even the most high density materials, are prone to microfractures. Microorganisms are notoriously splendid at working their way into incredibly minute microfractures. ...
"Showing that the bug that you have actually is NOT a contaminant organism that made its way into a meteorite is a practically unsolvable problem. If you turn up an organism whose chemistry, way of coding information, or something else (besides morphology) indicates that it is significantly (and I MEAN significantly) different from anything that has ever been seen on Earth, THEN you might have a chance of proving this. Pictures of tube shaped structures don’t do it."
Update for 2:40 p.m. ET: Carl Pilcher, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute, told The Associated Press that the structures seen in the meteorite are most likely earthly contamination. He turned thumbs down on Hoover's claim that they were extraterrestrial organisms:
"There has been no one in the scientific community, certainly no one in the meteorite analysis community, that has supported these conclusions. The simplest explanation for Mr. Hoover's measurements is that he's measuring microbes from Earth. They're contamination."
Update for 4:45 p.m. ET: In a comment appended to Keith Cowing's posting about the study on NASA Watch, Rocco Mancinelli of the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute takes issue with the NASA statement that "the peer review process was not completed" when a paper by Hoover was submitted for publication in the International Journal of Astrobiology in 2007. "The paper was rejected, after peer review," said Mancinelli, who is listed as an associate editor of that journal. (Mancinelli also sent in critical comments that were included in my previous roundup on the "meteorite life" study.)
Update for 9:25 p.m. ET: There's been a lot of back and forth over whether Hoover has claimed to have a Ph.D. NASA Watch's Keith Cowing has put a lot of effort into this — and determined from NASA that he doesn't have a Ph.D., even though the Journal of Cosmology paper lists him as having one. Jennifer Lewter, a teacher who says she's a "big fan of Dr. Hoover's," indicates in her blog postings that he has two honorary doctorates.
Meanwhile, the journal's managing editor, Lana Tao, said in an e-mail that 21 commentaries on Hoover's paper had been received and that all were published, even though two (Nos. 11 and 15) still seemed to be missing at the end of the day. One of the late entries, from Oxford's Martin Brasier (No. 9) cast doubts on Hoover's results. "These samples have been sitting around in laboratories for between 205 and 73 years," he wrote. "It is well known that microbial contaminants can penetrate deep into such rocks, even during storage. The null hypothesis, therefore, is that many of these objects ... may be prokaryotic contaminants." (Cyanobacteria qualify as prokaryotic organisms.)
Tao also fired back once more at the journal's critics, insisting that Hoover's paper went through adequate peer review. Here's a quote from the e-mail:
"As every editor and guest editor will attest, all articles are subjected to peer review. We reject over 30 percent of invited papers and over 70 percent of those which are not invited. Every editor, and guest editor, has had their work subjected to peer review, and every editor has been required to revise their articles after peer review. Even the executive editors have been required to revise their papers after peer review. We believe in peer review.
"Peer review provides wonderful feedback which can help make a paper better, or which can explain why the paper is hopeless and must be rejected. However, we do not reject great papers because we disagree with them as is the habit of other periodicals.
"Dr. Hoover's paper was received in November. It was subjected to repeated reviews and underwent one significant revision.
"We have published every commentary received, 21 so far. The vast majority support Dr. Hoover's findings.
"The choice is simple: Scientific discourse vs psychosis. Hysteria and lies do not constitute scientific doubt. They are calls for medication."
Update for 7 p.m. ET March 8: Now for the postmortems: Two more e-mails went out from Tao overnight. One was addressed to Paul Hertz, the NASA scientist who implied that the agency could not "stand behind or support" Hoover's claims because they had not been sufficiently peer-reviewed. In the message, which was copied to numerous others including yours truly, Tao said "we will file a formal complaint with NASA regarding your unprofessional, dishonest conduct." She said "over 30 NASA scientists have published with the Journal of Cosmology" and insisted that the articles "underwent rigorous peer review."
In another e-mail message, Tao thanked members of the media "for covering this important story and bringing attention to Richard Hoover's discoveries." She said the journal's owners accepted a buyout offer two weeks ago, before last weekend's flap. "The selling of JOC also means a new managing editor," she wrote. "Therefore with this thank you, I also get to say ... goodbye!"
Today, Columbia Journalism Review's Curtis Brainard recapped the whole saga of the microbes in the meteorite ... and the media ... in a posting to The Observatory blog. "Anything having to do with extraterrestrials has a way of creating a media frenzy," Brainard observed. "But reporters have obviously learned from frenzies past."
I'm definitely feeling frenzied out, but Tao's earlier reference to Gil Levin's claims about the Viking experiments has reminded me to add that issue to the list of controversial astrobiology results:
- Did Viking find life on Mars ...
- ... Or did Viking kill life on Mars?
- Definition of life: Arsenic debate just won't die
- Strange find on Titan sparks chatter about life
- Mars methane mystery: What's making the gas?
- Meteorite study revives debate over life on Mars
- Search for alien life may take giant leap forward
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about Alan Boyle's book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
I am not a scientist or a religionist-but I do believe in some kind of physical life in outer-space, and spiritual life after physical death. Call me crazy, but so did they think of Copernicus, Galileo, etc.
i am with u completely, Jay Arr. wish more would come out in this regard.
Yes, but they WERE scientists who made their claims after much resarch, and you're just speculating, so please let this be the last time you're comparing yourself to them, it's offends me.
@stank bubalo
First of all you cannot determine that the world has been around for 65 million years or 4 billion or whatever random number you evolutionists decide to set it at. It's one thing to come to conclusions with facts but when deep down you truly don't know how the universe was created and going by what you personally believe in then that makes you very very stupid. If as scientists you can't distinguish fact from opinion then you're not scientists. As children, we were all taught the Earth was created 65 million years ago. In Webster's dictionary 2001 displays a chart showing the Earth being created 4.3 billion years ago. On National Geographic showed that "scientists" discovered fossils dating 300 million years and old alligators being 100 million years. A dinosaur "expert" and I don't remember his name, said dinosaurs died 15 million years ago. But then again I was taught dinosaurs died 65 million years ago, while on the other hand the universe was created 65 million years ago. So if you cannot make sense out of all that you're definitely not a scientist and not in the position to tell me what's fact when in actuality it's your opinion. Don't be stupid.
@ stanko bubalo
Did you get picked on in highschool or sumthing? lol
Man you got your facts all wrong.
Alex,
Did you just cut and paste one of Charlie Sheen's Twitter feeds? Get your facts straight and get back to me.
Anyways.....I find this discovering very exciting, not only because the rocks were cracked open within a sterile environment (negating the possibility of surface contamination), but mostly because some of the fossilized bacteria are not recognized by microbiology experts. That is pretty impressive in terms of supporting his claims.
@stanko bubalo
So, because he is not a scientist or philosopher, he isn't allowed to make assumptions or have beliefs?
Great logic.
By your logic, what gives you any right to give him orders? Maybe you're just the next Dr. Phil.
alex-3143215
Your are close to being the biggest fool I have ever read. That you are not a rational person is obvious. You have managed to garble the age of the eath, the age of aligators, the age of the universe and the intent of the article. Sit down and get a grip on yourself before they cart you off to a padded cell.
It just sounds like another hoax to me.
I am amzed by the "science" philosophy. While claiming to hold to "fact" you ignore "fact" everyday. We would call this little microbe life, but, yet a complex molecular structure such as a fetus is in not "life"! You are all living examples of the Word of God and don't even know it.
Stanko: Your comments offend me! But I'm a big boy and can live with people expressing their views. Get over yourself, dude.
@Ed-1883977
I actually am a rational person. I just use logic and what I've been taught and use my research to make my conclusions. I'm not like you who automatically believes the words of someone who believes it MIGHT have been true. That's the difference between people like me and people like you. Don't argue with me because you won't win.
@D.Man
I don't use twitter to cut and paste my info. I DO have my facts straight. And the facts are that I've been given different time periods of the creation of the Earth and universe which just so happens the number DO NOT add up. And people like you want to go out and say there's life somewhere else. I don't disregard that proposition and possibility and it's one thing to believe that there is more life out there, but it's another to say just because you find micro organisms on a rock in space to say that there is. I believe there's micro organisms on other planets and chances are I'm right but they're not as complex as humans or animals. And to say there IS aliens or alien animals in space is far of a stretch. You or anyone else can't prove how we got here and you want to try jumping to conclusions on life that you don't even know is there yet? Yeah man, get YOUR facts straight. And be logical and rational in what and how you're going to respond.
So are we to assume that the "facts" you've gathered to develop your conclusions are correct while everyone else's are wrong? Wow! You might be the most intelligent person in the world! Please share more of your infinite wisdom with us....(LOL)
alex-3143215
I just do not get your post. First off, if your were taught that the earth was only 65 million years old then you yourself must have gone to school in the early 20th century prior to radiometric age dating. You have all of your dates thoroughly confused.
"But then again I was taught dinosaurs died 65 million years ago, while on the other hand the universe was created 65 million years ago"
If you were taught that then one of three things explains this: 1. You didn't listen. 2. The Teacher did not teach very well. 3. You are so old that current science and evidence gathering techniques were not available.
Science like everything else evolves. By your notion Medical Doctors must also be stupid to because they have to evolve their techniques with new discoveries.
Your position is lacking any logical structure. Just because a scientist states that dinosaurs died out 15 million years ago does not mean there could not be a fossil 300 million years ago. All that states is that they may have reigned on the Earth for over 235 million years.
I think your grasp of actual dates is getting in the way of any logic or positioning of your argument.
@mmasoni
Don't misconstrue it. I'm not saying that what I say is right and what they say is wrong. As a matter of fact, you can't deny me that there have been set claims for numbers of years the universe has been created. I say it's fact that this what I have been taught. And who taught me? You're fellow evolutionists. So because they give me different year numbers what do I conclude? That none of those numbers add up and that they were numbers chosen out the blue sky, because nobody can ever prove the universe was created that long ago. So therefore I do more research, because using logic and rational thinking and common sense it's clear that whoever said that is wrong. Why are they wrong? Because they're giving out random numbers that contradict their previous claims. Should I waste my time with you? Or do you have more ignorant stuff to say. It appears you can only use childish sarcasm and ignorance to go against me rather than maturing and discussing it with an open minded and adult manner. Apparently you're an atheist or evolutionist. Want to come at me again?
@Trankonia
It's actually not. I'm 19 years old so all of these years of the universe being created was taught to me recently. And I had B average grades in school, so I listened very carefully. And also the text books these were taught to me in where mid 2000s. So every claim regarding that is very recent. And the numbers do not make sense nor add up. 65 million years ago one thing happened according to one text book and 65 million years ago another thing happened in another text book and National Geographic, a legit source for information states prehistoric fossils were 300 million years old and 100 million years ago alligators lived but yet evolutionists believe alligators and other modern day animals were originated from it's ancestors aka the dinosaurs. So following that 300 million prehistoric fossils 100 million alligators lived 65 million dinosaurs lived and/or the universe was created. And when it comes theories on how the universe got here, claims were that all the matter in the universe were smushed together smaller than a period after this sentence. Then another scientist says the universe got created out of nothing. Tell me, how is anybody supposed to take them seriously. How's that for logical and rational thinking.
Alex
I don't know where you went to school, but I wouldn't send my kids there. I've been watching this field for over 50 years, ever since I coud read, and I NEVER saw a reference that the universe was only 65 million years old. The accepted age of the universe based on big bang physics has been modified as we got a better handle on the Hubble Constant (a measurement thing, just what scientists do) and it has alsways been in the billions of years. However, when the Hubble constant was believed to be half of what we believeit to be now, there was a lot of work from estimating the age of the oldest stars, that indicated that the universe was older than that projected by big bang and much research to find out why. That's what scientists do. They don't spout religiously based rhetoric and call that thought.
Same with your dinosaurs. I have NEVER seen the numbers you talk about.
So, you have a right to make a fool of yourself, but you don't have the right to lie. I don't believe you really heard these numbers from anybody credible, maybe the scientific equivalent to Glenn Becks chalk board, but certainly not from a real science teacher, unless you went to one of those christian madrases that pretend creationism is anything that even approximates science.
Reading your post does indeed remind me that we have a real problem with quality of education in this country.
@Ferrosynthesis II
I actually went to a public school. A public school that taught the same exact things as every other public school. Well ok I'll grant the proposition that the big bang happened because I have been taught the big bang myself. So tell me, before the big bang explosion, was it spinning? Did it stay in place? Did it rotate at all? Because if it rotated clockwise, then why are the galaxies spinning COUNTER clockwise? That would been they're spinning the wrong way. Also, there are science teachers who don't entirely agree with other scientists just to point that out to you right now. Scientists can't even prove the big bang ever happened either. They found fragments which they said it MIGHT have been a big bang but they can't prove there was one. And no I'm not religious either, because as a matter of fact evolution provides no hard physical evidence and in no way can be examined or observed and science by definition is knowledge gained by observation and examination, meaning anything can be science. Trying to find out how machines work is science. Observing a plants growth is science, even something so small as to learning how shoe strings are tied to keep the shoe tight is science. Why is it science? Because YOU WERE THERE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED. Why is it that some opinionated theory on the universe's origin is science when NOBODY for a FACT was NOT THERE to SEE WHAT HAPPENED? I KNOW to some degree you agree with me. Deny it all you want, but you know I'm right.
Dinosaur bones were planted by early man liberals and Democrats to fool us into believing the earth is more than 4,000 years old. :-P
alex-3143215
Just like everyone else here I can't stop laughing at your post. I just would like to know where you read or who taught you that earth was created 65 million years ago. Please get your numbers straight and don't read anything that is beyond your capabilities to understand it. Please keep posting, we all can use a good laugh. Thank you!!!
@Tired-of-it
Thank you, and that's something we can really observe if that was ever the case because there has been drawings and carvings of dinosaurs on places such as the Grand Canyon before the first world known dinosaur bone was ever discovered. So taking that into account you can tell something also doesn't add up. Unless you're being sarcastic which I believe you to be doing.
@HMMM-2811054
Another ignorant person. Did I just not put in my recent post that I was taught this by evolutionists and teachers? If you're so smart then when DID dinosaurs die?
alex-3143215
Give it up. You're way out of your league here. I'm not trying to be mean, but I don't think you understand what rational or logical thinking is all about. You seem to lack the ability to properly understand the science you discuss here. Get yourself a decent education. It's apparent that either you haven't had one, or you refused to let it in.
@Christine8
I suppose your logical and rational thinking is to believe what has never been proven but rather beliefs by scientists who publish in science journals that it is fact. If you're on their side and don't spend 24/7 on how we got here then I suggest you drop it because that would mean you're in no position to argue. Unless you want to then go ahead but I have more evidence and research stating the universe is not as old as scientists claim to be. Carbon dating whoopie doo. The same carbon dating that dated 2 body parts on the same animal to have a 150,000 year difference. Yeah. That's definitely rational and logical thinking. And it doesn't matter what you say because anything more logical would be deemed illogical according to your logic am I right? Please amputate an arm and leg of mine and find out how old I am because for all I know the doctors at the hospital could have been lying to me. Ok christine.
@D.Man: ROFL! I know another DMan in another forum, if you are not him, you sound like him! hahaha
@Ed: hahaha you sound just like another "bigger" Ed I know!
@Trankonia: Thanks for breaking that down step-by-step for alex; hopefully they can now see the glaring errors in their logic.
@Alex: If you feel like you now need to brush up your 'research' (as I would expect you should), you can get up to speed on Earth pretty quickly, as that is grade-school level subject matter. I would suggest you start with school.discoveryeducation.com/homeworkhelp/bjpinchbeck/bjscience.html which is the Discovery network online homework helper. Wikipedia is good too =P but may not be as easy to read.
Getting up to speed on the Universe however, is a bit more difficult. But, even though some of the concepts may be too complex, you should be able to read through some of the posts at: www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=69 (Physicsforums cosmology page), particularly in the sticky thread at the top of the forum.
@FosterGrant: You cannot lump all of science together like that, any more than you can lump all of religion. That would be like me saying that since religion (all world religions combined) can't decide if Christ was a man, if he was a God, or do not even know or care that he existed at all, then he should be dismissed. It’s nonsense. I abhor the act of pitting science against religion, or vice versa. It’s like commanding the eagle to tear the head off of the other side of the coin.
@Stanko: On one hand, you are absolutely correct - Jay cannot say "I am not a scientist" and then compare himself to great ones. But I don't think Jay meant to draw a direct comparison.
I think his point was that a rational person could come to the conclusion expressed in the first sentence of the post. And there are people today who would call that person crazy. But this is would not be the first time in history where the crazy sounding idea was the correct one.
In my observation this was the intended message of the post.
Alex!!!
"And also the text books these were taught to me in where mid 2000s."
Again!!! really!!!!! mid 2000s??? No wonder none of us here understand what you're saying. Your studies are so far ahead of our time!!!
Come on guys, lets leave Alex alone, he can't take on everybody without making these funny statements. He is 19 and he is the future of the world... sadly he is not the only one that thinks this way, so the future seems pretty bad.
@StrongModification:
The original poster claimed that we shouldn't criticize his beliefs because "they called Galileo crazy." This completely misses the point of what Galileo, and, for that matter, every other man and woman who's ever made a contribution to humanity's scientific knowledge, did. Galileo and Copernicus did not say "I feel that it's this way" and simply happen to be right, they made observations and recorded data over a period of decades, then presented the evidence to back up their claims. Trying to claim that some people called them crazy as a way to legitimize one's own evidence free claims is a defamation of science.
@alex
I don't know where you went to school, but it was apparently well below the national level. Your claims are completely ridiculous and appear to have been fabricated on the spot. Given your numerous references to "you evolutionists," I'm going to guess that you're a tad on the religious side. If you're not and you're simply genuinely confused, then I preemptively apologize.
In any event, science is based off of recording observations and testing ideas. Only if ideas can be shown to have evidence behind them are they then accepted. The age of Earth (about 4.6 billion years, give or take a few million) is based off of radiological decay, a process by which radioactive isotopes break down into non radioactive isotopes. Because this process is very, very regular, and even operates at the same rate regardless of how much radioactive material is present (2 pounds of the isotope break down into 1 pound at the same rate that 1 pound will break down into 1/2 a pound), by looking at the ratio of the radioactive isotope to the nonradioactive isotope it decays into, it is possible to make accurate observations of how old a rock is.
Just because you were taught something recently doesn't mean it's a recent claim. The claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old is not a recent one, it dates back to the Catholic Church centuries ago. It's rejected by scientists because there's no evidence for it, but many religious people still teach it because it matches the bible better than the scientific explanation. People can claim anything they want to, but science, as I've already said, is based on how strong your evidence is. Look at the person's evidence for their claims, not just the claims.
@HMMM-2811054
Lol is that so. It just so happened that I debated an evolutionist who had their doctrines degree which he proved had one by the way and I won. And yes my research is very recent. Not like yours who's research is hundreds of years ago. Oh yeah, because we have technology 1000 times better than we had 200 some odd years ago, your research is a lot more valid than the research of today. Lol ok what's your face. That's exactly how you rationally think.
@Reed0
Sorry dude, I went through basic education and learned nothing than that I have been lied to. And if that link is directing me to an article, then all I really will be doing is reading someones words, theories and opinions. No facts. Actions speak louder than words my friend. If they can't start proving the universe is billions of years without them deluding themselves that they can prove they've been there when it happened when they actually can't. Someone tells me that someone got burned to death somewhere on the other side of the world. How would you react? "Oh my God that's terrible. Well I know he or she died a slow painful death and their death was only seconds." Is that so? How would you know that if you were never given the entire story yet still blindly coming to conclusions acting like you knew it all. How would I react? "Well it sounds terrible but how do you know someone got burned to death? How do you know someone died at all on the other side of the world?" Well I will get one of two answers. Answer 1: "I was there" (this would very illogical. Going to the other side of the world and back in minutes) or Answer 2: "I don't know" (this would conclude they DON'T know and just blindly believing it did) and these would be one of your answers and since you didn't live billions of years ago to know what happened then your answer would be number 2. You don't KNOW but you're allowed to BELIEVE it happened but you have to keep in mind you CAN'T PROVE it. That's the difference between me and you. And THAT'S logical and rational thinking. If there's anything more logical and rational you have to say rather than insults and immature name calling and childish sarcasm then don't bother replying because I guarantee you won't win.
@therapsid
"Just because you were taught something recently doesn't mean it's a recent claim. The claim that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old is not a recent one, it dates back to the Catholic Church centuries ago. It's rejected by scientists because there's no evidence for it, but many religious people still teach it because it matches the bible better than the scientific explanation. People can claim anything they want to, but science, as I've already said, is based on how strong your evidence is. Look at the person's evidence for their claims, not just the claims."
That's exactly how the evolutionist community is. And I'm not religious at all. When it comes to radiological decay it was deemed useless as carbon dating and I forgot what the discovery was that deemed radiological decay to not work but when I soon find out again I'll get back to you on that. But you have to understand there are some major consistencies. For example, fossils do not tell you much at all. All you can conclude is that they died and you can't prove if anything came out of it, who's its parents or if it had any offspring. And carbon dating and radiological decay was proved and invalid method of it not working. As I stated in my previous post, 2 body parts on the same animal were dated to have a 150,000 year difference. And that's a dating method that scientists use. So if it was so valid then why isn't that looked at as inconsistent or in simpler terms, wrong.
@Alex: LOL Sorry, I guess everyone has you on the offensive, I didn't intend to insult you in my post, but rather I tried to provide you with a means to alleviate your ignorance.
I have to refer you back to therapsid’s post. Once you understand what science is, then you can know that the things you read on the physicsforums link (I mean, I would assume Discovery network’s homework helper is going to have accurate up-to-date information, but I don’t know that it isn’t biased in some way) are as true and accurate as they can be given the data we have at the moment and our ability to interpret it.
And yes, you can find laymen-level, positively verifiable, information on the age, size, and shape of the known Universe in that physics forum link. The few major unknowns are still things like what happens with the expansion e.g. does it go on forever until there are no stars in the sky (figuratively, the timeframe is beyond the life of our solar system I believe), or does it eventually stop and collapse? Mankind certainly does not yet have all of the answers. But many of the ones we do have are very good.
And I’m still laughing at D.Man’s post! That was just too funny. I have a right to be amused. =P
@Reed0
Very good answers in their view yes, but not entirely true as they make it seem to be.
"And yes, you can find laymen-level, positively verifiable, information on the age, size, and shape of the known Universe in that physics forum link." - And no you cannot prove a print of an animal on a rock was ever millions of years old. For the last time those methods have been proven to not work.
"The few major unknowns are still things like what happens with the expansion e.g. does it go on forever until there are no stars in the sky (figuratively, the timeframe is beyond the life of our solar system I believe), or does it eventually stop and collapse?"
Very good questions but allow me to point something out. First off and I will state this for the 3rd or 4th time, I am not religious. I base my conclusions on logic and rational thinking along with facts. With that said, let me point this out. The bible is the most oldest book in the known universe. Now, in the bible it states that "the 2nd heavens (the stars, space and cosmos) are expanding." - From a book 2 some odd millenniums ago. And scientists had discovered the universe has been expanding give or take a couple hundred years ago. So how is it that the people who wrote the oldest book in the world, knew that the universe was expanding without technology when people today WITH technology just recently discovered it?
@Alex,
This link might help put the Earth timescale into perspective. www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=
The attacks by you and towards you are unproductive. You seem to have some interest in the topic, but there is knowledge lacking. This is what learning is all about, read the different point of views, gather a strong basis of facts and make your own decision on what is correct. The depth of facts and the amount of scientific knowledge is more than what you would know at 19. Commentors here have varying ages and varying opinions, few will give you links to support their point of views. Without supporting evidence, it's just an opinion like most everyone else.
@TReed
You know, the only responses I've been getting is "no knowledge" or "you're dumb" or "get your facts straight" so is there any adult and mature response you can give me? If I'm wrong can you please point it out? What do I have wrong? And why is that when I linked the scientists question of the universe expanding being a claim that was first stated from a 2000 year old book? It's science because we can only observe it, by when it comes from both parties, what then? How do you handle that? Would it be so hard to admit that the bible said it first and scientists discovered it recently? Because that IS the case and sequentially that IS fact. And since they can examine other giant things why can't they agree to something so small as that? It's logical and it's rational. I don't lack in knowledge. Think of this scenario: Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and explained what he BELIEVES it is. So his followers take a human skull and chimp skull. "Oh my God they're similar. It's evolution." They believe it's evolution because that's what evolution is as explained by Darwin. But if Darwin never came up with the idea of evolution and scientists took a human and chimp skull, they would say "well, they look almost the same. But there are some differences between the two. We don't know that it is. By the nature by both parties, they were probably meant to live with these similarities and differences" and then they would observe how a chimp lives by its nature and how humans live by their nature. But evolution has them thinking just because we have similarities we're all related. Truly give it some thought, evolution was made up by a person of the mid 1850s or something who had no technology at his disposal to support his claim. But when it gets passed down and children who are taught a belief who then grow up to BE scientists will interpret every discovery as it having to be evolved, because that's what they were primarily taught. So agreeing to something would go against their belief and by nature people are too proud of themselves to admit they're wrong, so they try to get other simple minded people who will believe anything like they did to agree with them.
I think the close genetic link between man and the great apes proved evolution not the shape of the skulls.
.
hey alex, i would really like to find out where and who you got your information from. My email address fjrocha@miners.utep.edu. I know most of us on here talk of proof but fail to cite anything. I honestly believe you think you are right but instead of attacking you i would like to understand where you are coming from. I'll update whether you came through or not.
In all seriousness, I think Alex has Asperger's. That's the only logical explanation.
I think what Alex is trying to put in question and argue here is "How accurate science really is". The old science has been to found to be wrong before many times. Modern science is using method that limit the margin of error but we all have to agree that no science is 100% accurate.
@alex, the first problem people have with science is they think you have to believe in science. Science is not a belief, it is a methodology for understanding nature. This was also a problem for Darwin. His findings went against what he believed. Some of his findings have been proven wrong, some are still at the forefront of evolutionary biology. But current theories in evolutionary biology don't look at feature components between species, some the most exciting work is with mitichondrial DNA. This information is passed down through the females of a species and is highly accurate when compared to other techniques. The problem I see is that some people need to have a clear distinction between science and religion, whereas for others, there doesn't need to be a distinction.
The Bible was a means of unifying the Christian faith by Emperor Constantine, and as religious centerpiece, has been left pretty much unchanged for 2000 years. Its not meant to explain the world around us, but it does lay down a basis for a life with God in it. Science is not about God, but the way I look at it, is that science is a different set lenses as to view what God created. The process of creation doesn't dictate who created the universe and science is try to understand the process.
@Fab, it is impossible for science to be 100% accurate due to the fact that at the quantum level you have infinite possibilities, so we try explain the most probable, which then is based upon our current knowledge. As we learn more, our point of view changes. @Alex, this is where the comment about knowledge comes from. Based on your comments, you beleive in your faith pretty heavily, but if you make all of your comments in that bias, you miss a lot of other knowledge that is outside the realm of religion. You don't even need to agree with all that read, the point is to read it to understand where someone else might be coming from. There are always more than one way to the answer.
@TReed
Very well said. I agree with you. and Alex as well, actually everybody here. I think there is always things that we can all agree upon. The objective here is not who's right or who's wrong but what we can all agree upon. At the end nobody know FOR SURE where we come from or where we're going. Having a "soft heart" or "open mind" is an important element in learning and understanding, if you think you're always right you never learn nothing. I really think everybody in here is very intelligent and have a lot of useful things to say. Do I agree with everybody about everything? no. But I can find common ground with all. We're all at the research of a purpose...The "WHY?" question. I don't even think our mind can even comprehend absolute knowledge.
alex-3143215
I only hope that in your tender years you get a better education and go to college. I will say again that your dates are extremely off. If you were "taught" those time-lines then the teacher was extremely poor. Please show a reference to a viable textbook that supported your science curriculum so many of us can get a laugh.
My intention is to not insult you but tell you that the information that you are spewing just does not add up with current science theorems. Yes, much of science are theories but any credible theory is backed up with proper scientific data gathering. A solid theoretical paper will provide dissenting statements and reasons why the conclusion is theory instead of a fact. It will also provide verifiable facts to support the theory and why the conclusion was made.
Correct theories will eventually be proved out. The world was considered Flat until the theory that it was round was proved. It is no longer a theory. The examples are enormous where theories, based on a preponderance of evidence, eventually filled the data points to turn the theory from a concept to 100% verifiable fact.
I guess the concept of a preponderance of evidence seems to elude you. The same approach is used in law. Unfortunately, you could say that convicting someone on a preponderance of evidence is riddled with flaws and some people have been wrongly convicted. I would have to agree. There have been numerous cases were scientific evidence of DNA cleared the person. However, I would estimate 90-95% accuracy in convictions. (I would have to research that) That concept of DNA was once a theory. Do you dispute the science for that now?
Point is that even with some evidence gaps there may be a preponderance of data to come to a logical and scientific theory and conclusion.
In regards to the article, very interesting if it proved to be true. The... outspoken disagreement regarding the article is very reminiscent of the arsenate life publication, though I hope that independent verification proves that right. Something about this just feels.... off though, I dunno how to explain it. Its not registering as a possibility in my mind.
And to Alex. One piece of advice for you. Forget everything you learned in school, and start researching this stuff yourself. Depending on where you were educated, the cirriculum was inaccurate at best, and biased at worse. You have access to one of the greatest study resources ever: The Internet. Wikipedia does have some pertinent information, but take it with a grain of salt(also some of the pages can be a bit over technical). Go down to your local library, see if they have a fulll copy of a recent edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica(a very useful study tool of mine from school days). I would like to see some of these inaccurate resources, to see if they are truly being inaccurate, or to see if the way they have presented the information left it open for misinterpretation. Do not accept everything for face value, always do your own research, and always keep your mind open to the sheer possibility.
alex never emailed me : ( oh well
You don't think that maybe it was caught in a spam trap?
> I say "Ni"! <
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this claim does not. I'll wait, there's no deadline or rush to prove life orginated elsewhere.
To Doug: Why is this claim any more extraordinary then saying life orginated here? There is no proof either way. All we know for sure is there were microcopic life forms that started life here. They could have came here on a meter similar to the one that this fossil is in. We should not exclude any data.
What is popular is not always right ... what is right is not always popular. I love the line in Men In Black .... where the older guy is talking to Smith .... saying 500 years ago we believed the world was flat, 5 mins ago you believed we were the only life in the universe ...
Tommy Lee Jones.
Blood,
Doug's statement doesn't claim life originated here, and indeed it would be an equally extraordinary claim and at least require the substantial disproof of any other alternatives. Doug is saying that this isn't enough proof to settle the argument once and for all (either way) and that he's waiting for more.
So am I, and so should any good researcher not personally involved in the research.
Blood Rose,
You are assuming an awful lot in stating that life on this planet originated from microscopic life forms. You are stating that life on this planet came from microscopic life forms as if it were fact when in fact it is just a hypothesis with no real evidence to back it up. I understand where Alex is coming from, even if I don't understand his rant. (Putting soap box away)
As for the "filament", very interesting, but hardly proof for life in outer space with out more evidence. Just because you find kids in the back seat of a Toyota does not make them Japanese.
to C. Smith
Perhaps, but Doug was not clear, I read his comment to mean the idea of life in space was extraordinary ... if Doug did intend it to be that, then I am in full agreement with him. We need more proof.
to Bill.W
You are right, I did use an hypothesis as fact when stating that. That was an error on my part. Thank you for the correction.
But, my meaning still stands firm, we do not know what is out there ..... we may be alone, or we may have many neighbors in space.
I'm wondering why so much skepticism, after all of Carl Sagen's billions and billions, why should it be so hard to take this information as a single peice of data in a long line that must come.
About 65 million years ago, a large object hit the earth and ejected quite a bit of material into space. Is it possible that some of the material contained bits of life and that ejected material occasionally falls back to earth?
What's more, the fact that some bacteria aren't even recognized by experts doesn't say much for it's origin. If it did come from Earth hundreds of millions or billions of years ago, the bacterial strains alive then have almost certainly gone through massive changes since then, probably far more than the animals have (think pteradons to eagles or the like). Since there isn't much of a fossil record for bacteria, it wouldn't be surprising for experts today not to recognize bacteria from then.
Of course, they also wouldn't recognize bacteria from Io...
If the meteorite was from Earth itself and related to previous meteor impacts, wouldn't their be other identifying elements present w/ this bacteria? Why is this bacteria not showing up on microbiologists radar...could it truly be from an alien source?? More research please
C. Smith...
DNA not bacteria link pteradons to eagles, and other extinct animals to species of today.
i agree with sci fi writer completely, religion has no place in science. if your into religion, fine. if youre into science, fine. the simple fact here is that theres not enough evidence to support anybodys claims. thats a job for the scientists. all the religious fanatics have to do is let the scientists do their job. if the scientists happen to prove the bible wrong again then oh well, suck it up and move on. galileo was warned he'd be hung if he released his evidence proving that the earth revolves around the sun. (or so i was taught anyways). and even today scientists have to worry about scrutiny from religious fanatics that want to believe blindly. just because the scientists prove the bible wrong doesnt mean that theres not a god! it just means the book you read might not be entirely accurate. live with it, after all the book was written by mortals like you and me. (and edited) if i were to tell you right now that i spoke to god last night would you believe me? probably not, yet you're the same people that believe in the bible to no end blindly. how does that make any sense? spoiler alert.... it doesnt. look for your own answers. ask and you shall recieve. as far as scientists go, yes scientists need to approach every obstacle with an open mind or they themselves are not true scientists. as for what i believe, i believe in facts, and we dont have enough facts to support either claim. do i beleive theres life on other planets? its very possible how can it not be? every star has the possibility of being another planets sun and this planet is relatively young. i do believe in evolution but again, that doesnt mean there isnt a god. if you plant enough seeds to fill a greenhouse are you not a god to the plants that youve created? (pretty bad example but im sure you understand my point)
I like this statement:
The religious see this as a contradiction to their God's word that he created life here on earth. The religious sheep blind themselves to the truth of science, yet like to benifit from the discoveries. Others just refuse to believe anything. Many of the old guard of scientists are not as open minded as their profession requires, and will not support anything that they have been unable to prove themselves. It's a pride thing.
I am all for finding out that there is life out there. It is difficult for me to not believe in life else where.
Personally, I believe that we should not be so arrogant to think that God would have made living beings on only one planet in the universe.
How can you place religion here? You're blinded by your own belief in life else where. Science is based on facts and proof, none of which this NASA researcher has provided. All it is, is simple claim. I'm guessing you believe every claim out there that fits your reality.
I agree, maybe there is life elsewhere, nothin really says there's not, the bible focuses on the Earth and God's creations here, it doesn't say there is not life anywhere else...... If there is, then great, maybe we can learn from them, or maybe they can learn from us... Who knows....
scifiwriter.....you have a small point but in all reality scientist sheep blind themselves to the reality that belief in divine inspiration has a hand in evloution. Before there was legal science, the scriptures in all beliefs was that the earth was "hung like a ball in the sky" and that there are "many worlds in the universe". That was written long before anyone thought the earth wasnt flat. Religion kind of shoots itself in the foot when they preach that the earth was made in 6 days, in the bible it says that "one day in gods time is AS a thousand years"........."AS" being the critical part of the statement since nobody has ever seen 1000 years old........thus giving simple minded people a gauge for time. The earth is hundreds of millions years old, giving time for many things to develop, thrive and die off. Science proves this all the time. However, I will also believe that the earth is the only planet in the universe that has such a diverse and abundance of life.....with creatures who contemplate their existance and how it became so.
It all can be argued a hundred different ways, it is almost as much philosophy as it is anything. Who says that life did not begin some other place light years away but was steered here by gods hand on a meteor to begin a new origan of life. It is about being open minded, evidence and hard facts prove theories that at one point seamed impossible so while some ideas seem completely nuts remember it is only one persons point of view so go easy on them cause your idea probably seems just as nuts to another person in this world.
There is life somewhere else; in HEAVEN, but the life one lives here on earth must be pleasing to God in order to live life in Heaven...so we should all work on pleasing God now while we have life here.
There is a difference between open mindedness and blindly accepting what a scientist says. There is a lessening emphasis on empirical evidence, and more on repeating a theory so often that those who trust that a scientist knows his work knows better.
Amen. Well said. Alot of people who don't believe in God will be saddenly mistaken when judgement day comes. Isn't it evident that God exists just look around the oceans, sky, animals etc..
the comment about how god surely created life on other planets as well is making me laugh
i was told all about god growing up, heaven and all that. i want to believe....but all my life i have had questions...it doesnt make sense....surely if there is a god, then he has to know that people would question it....so we are to be punished if we don't believe when that "judgement day" comes...god is going to send me to hell because "how dare I not believe!" I guess I should just believe everything that "man" wrote a book about.
scifiwriter,
You're bigotry is showing. The truth is that most Christians today don't have any problem with alien life. The Bible never says God didn't get creative elsewhere, too. What's more, a careful reading shows that it never says God created life on Earth, just that He caused it to be here. Be that through spontaneous generation, billions of years of evolution, or panspermia, it never says.
And no, evolution and a 6-day creation aren't mutually exclusive. Relativity is a wonderful thing.
Wadejs, it's good to have questions and there is one whom can answer those questions...God can. His Holy Spirit is in the Earth and he knows and sees everything, he knows all about us and when our hearts are sincere and honest he will direct our paths.
sade2011
But I thought GOD was all loving, all forgiving. What about those people born in situations were the newborn innocent is molded into hate because of the direct influences on them? How do they even know God exists? They are non-believers so I guess they will suffer the consequences.
The most hypocritical statement by most religions is that they take the stance that it is either conform to their way or face eternal damnation. Funny how arrogant they are and have the "Fear of God"...who is supposed to be so merciful.
Personally, I believe you can believe in God as well as evolution. If God wanted us not to question the creation of the Universe then he would not have given us the intellectual capacity to think and question the beginning of life.
Science and the techniques for discovery and verification continue to evolve. Theories sometimes become facts, others get dismissed when disproved. I have yet to see any proof of creationism or proof that the Earth is the only inhabited planet. IMHO it is pure arrogance to think that we are the only life in the Universe.
"Isn't it evident that God exists just look around the oceans, sky, animals etc.."
Sade...When we do that we don't find God. We find overwhelming evidence that what God told his desert wanderers was ludicrous.
Yo Mike Poppas, the bible actually does say it only created life here. Don't remember the verse but its in there. Not saying I believe that, I more likely believe that man manipulated the bible for thier own power but thats besides the point and a whole different debate.
No I will call this 'wish thinking'
I would have to agree with Wayne-3142922... With the huge asteroid impacts that have happened on earth before with some powerful enough to knock chunks of earth into space who is to say this piece of "space rock" was not originally from earth...
Who said god ONLY created life on earth? I didn't see those words in the bible. Doesn't God exist in the heavens and doesn't he represent life. God made man in his image and we may be in the only place where that exists but i don't think God would have created anything devoid of life......i don't believe it's in his nature. I think we spend way too much time challenging God instead of following God. I look up at the stars once in a while and see God through the last great unknown on how something sprang from nothing and i feel a deep sense of reassurance in my faith that the creator has a purpose for us beyond our existence here. In a way i believe we are looking into the heavens at night and deep down we know that the only way to get there is through death. I don't believe man will ever achieve the goal of breaking the spped of light (186,000mph) and ever leave this place. Whether God made life just here on earth or all over space really doesn't matter a whole lot to me, i am very humbled and thankfull that i exist in the first place and serve a purpose in the creators plan. We fight over everything here on our tiny little earth and fail to see the greater purpose in life and that's to be like Christ. I think some put too much hope into finding someplace out there we can escape to some day because they know that mans sinfull nature will eventually destroy this place. Repent and be at peace, God's at the healm, trust in the Holy Spirit to let you know right from wrong and do something brave........live it.
God knows i'm wrong about a lot of things, some of what may be what i just said about where God created life.....just my opinion.
Well said Randy!
God how small minded would we be if we didnt believe in other life in different places?
Our goverment probably already knows but once again they are keeping that from us...
I dont believe anything our goverments say anymore...What happened to taking care of the common
person...Just think if we were looking down from the heavens and saw our earth would you want to visit it? I would be scared with all the fighthing , pollution, homeless people and starving children.
Shame on us....
Hello Randy,
I just wanted to say that you have spoke the truth in my opinion. I totally agree with you whole heartly that some scientists, and archeologists is trying to find away to escape this earth without dying. They need to be trying to find a cure for dangerous diseases that we as human beings are facing today. They are so busy opeaning up blogs and forums that are irrevalent to our life. If there is life elsewhere it is not meant for us to find it. I personally believe there is a universe beyond this one but it remains to be discovered. That is my own opinion, and is definately not a fact. I thank you for being very strong minded in your beliefs, and sharing them with us.
Randy it does say that God only created life on earth. Look a little deeper. Not saying I believe that but its in there.
" the idea of Fox News viewers being fed this "information."". This is probably the most truthful statement made in reference to this particular "science" story, political story, or any other "news" story for that matter. I believe that we are not alone and that other "life" forms probably exist in some form or fashion somewhere out there in the vast expanse but these stories are like any other spun to death things you are fed by those who believe in fairy tales and mad men. Sadly, some of Glen Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's followers will hoard three days of dried food to survive the total invasion of the planet by some creature they can't see while putting all their personal information on Mozy to protect it from theft while it is being sold for corporate profit by the preacher himself! The question remains, Where's the beef?????
That's fine that you BELIEVE, but most intelligent people follow facts and proof. Sorry rhetoric does not quantify as facts, truth, or even proof.
Your belief actually falls into the category of truthiness, and as George Mencia (comic thief) calls it dee dee dee – voluntarily retarded.
Tony, sorry, but you're wrong. In fact, most intelligent people know that there aren't enough facts or enough proof to really know much of anything. We all believe, either in the most simplistic explanation (which is not at all guaranteed to be right), or in the scientists who believe the most simplistic explanation, or in something else.
C. Smith
There are many of us who know what is possible to know based on physics. We also know what is total nonsense. Not that science YET has all the answers, but unlike religion, science is looking for those answers, not getting them from 4000 year old tribal myths and 2000 year old accounts of events that have been edited for political purposes.
I would trust science over any other explanation, in fact the scientific method is the ONLY way to get an answer about ANYTHING.
If you don;t believe me, then stop using your computer, since it depends on quantum mechanics, which is not only not in the bible, has many "logical" contradictions. Therefore it cannot be right.
Dah!! Gen 1:1
In the begining GOD created the HEAVENS and Earth! Not to hard to see from my perspective.
Believer
Good thing you are an ex-teacher. I would hate to think that you might biasing young minds with your pseudoscience perspective.
shut the @!$%# up, no one gives a @!$%# about god here this is a meteor we are talking about. go ahead and be a christian but really no one gives a flying @!$%# about gen 1:1 believer.
It's not that cut and dry teach, go back to school.
Hey Butthole and Abby, Open your eyes! Too blind to see?
Why is it that if a Christian makes a point it garbage, but a scientist makes on and its all truth?
Were you there when he discovered his evidence/ No, So this is a Man writing what he beleives he percieved right? Sound like what everyone says about the Bible HMMMM
ExTeacher who wrote that? Of course you don't know.
Tim
Scientists look form answers, they dont just accept the mandated view.
The system isn't perfect, it is sometimes hard to get a paper published if it is radical, but in the end it is the scientific method that works things out, not prayer. If you could ask Galileo or Copernicus you would see.
Hey butthole surfer, you should change your name to Cock surfer. How inflammatory do you want to be. Obviously since you have a screen between you and the rest of us gives you a big mouth that needs to be slapped. Schmuck!
I would not have such an issue with it if the organisms were not "Similar" or exactly the same as ones we can find on earth. So that can point towards the item being tampered with, exposer to the earth for a long period of time (After all it was FOUND on earth not brought to earth in a vacuum from space). On that note it would be pointing to contamination of the elements on this world. Not to mention the fact it could of been from Earth to begin with. If there is sufficient proof of an alien organism then for one it would be a lot MORE believable rather than going oh I found this in the arctic the microbes must be alien to earth.
Wow, a response that actually makes sense with no angst, impressive.
Life may have originated on earth from compounds containing amino acids, methane, CO2, H20, and other compounds, so what is the problem given that these compounds are found elsewhere in the universe- They were delivered to earth in the original aggregation cloud and later by meteorite bombardment, perhaps a comet or two. Who is to say that these compounds were not the result of other cosmic interactions. The earth WAS formed about 10 Billion years after the "Big Bang"-a misnomer in itself as there was certainly no sound at the time.
It's not called 'Big Bang' because of the noise, but because of the ENORMOUS explosion that took place. I would also claim that if by some odd reason you happened to be in the vacinity of that explosion, before you were disintegrated, you would hear it as well.
Chris, Per WikiPedia
Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models.[11][12][13] Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to understand stellar nucleosynthesis, the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some version of the Big Bang scenario must have occurred.
The way I understand science is that the simple answer is the right answer, that being said why is it so hard to accept that GOD made every thing? It's the simplest answer.
gene-349280, in science the simplest answer isnt the best, the answer that you have to make the least ammount of assumptions to come to is most likely the correct answer, so god takes last place in every category
You just described exactly what religion is all about. It's for simple and naive people.
Because there is no "proof" of GOD except in the written bible. If GOD made everything, he created dinosaurs before man?
No, the "creator" made all things!
tell me why he made dinosaurs billions of years before he decides to make man
I'll believe that this unbelievable huge universe was created by some deity when you can provide me with just one bit of hard evidence to support that belief.
wadejs- so we could have fossil fuels
wadejs, there is proof of God, there is life and each day you live it is because of God's mercies and YES he did create the animals first:)
gene and JohnT,
Occam's Razor isn't a law, it's a 'rule of thumb', which means it's a general guide, not a hard-and-fast rule. Many of the most embarrassing mistakes in scientific history came from people making the fewest assumptions. After all, spontaneous generation required fewer assumptions, as did a flat Earth.
Beyond that, the idea that God requires more assumptions is itself wrong. Let's look at the facts known today:
1.)Entropy cannot be decreased, only increased. The universe does not exhibit infinite entropy, therefore the universe is finite in time, with a finite beginning.
2.)Numerous natural properties of the universe appear 'finely tuned' to allow life as we know it to exist (relative strength of gravity, for example). These so-called anthropomorphic properties appear to be the way they are without cause, simply by chance.
3.)Every effect in our universe must have a cause. Since we only know this law within our universe, it is possible that it doesn't apply outside of our universe, so any 'Prime Mover' or 'First Cause' will have to be outside our universe.
From these three, we can limit the explanations of our universe to a few things:
1.)The universe is unique and alone, happening by purest chance (odds that make astronomical odds pale in comparison), and is, quite simply, the biggest jackpot in existence.
2.)The universe is not alone, but part of a vast, possibly infinite multiverse. While most of these universes couldn't support life as we know it, the odds virtually guarantee that one of them, somewhere, could. We are that one.
3.)The so-called 'anthropomorphic properties' only appear to be random. They are actually the way they are because they couldn't be anything else. Whether our universe is alone or one of many, it's no surprise it is the way it is. It couldn't be any other way.
4.)Our universe was designed to be the way it is by an outside, willful, sapient force. A God, or gods, or whatever.
All of these are equally valid and equally untestable from our current position. All require an assumption to be made. All require only one assumption to be made. That dull thump you just heard was Occam's Razor exploding.
I wonder are you really surprised, so much space and other planets what a waste it would be not to have other life out there.
There is life out there besides earth! End of story! There are billions of planets out there and there has to be life besides us. Anyone who doesn't think so are complete idiots. And life on other planets has NOTHING to do with religion. So don't say stupid crap like "well it doesn't say that in the book".
Really? REALLY? Un-f'ing-believable! I've never heard of this... GOD? is that what you called him? Man that is sooooo cool. Now we don't ever have to ask questions or seek answers. Done!
Religion is a mental illness.
And that is why, the simple minded look for and accept the simplest answers. The great leaps in technology and medicine are made by those who want to look for the real answers themselves. I imagine if life was found elsewhere and proven that it exists on an extraterrestrial location the "believers” would just add a book to the bible stating that God created that too for some fairy tale reason.
So they found microscopic life forms, big friggin' deal! Let us know when they find intelligent life. Unless, of course, all the intelligent life out there are smart enough to stay the heck away from Earth. They probably know how hostile we are to each other and they aren't taking any chances.
LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE
A GIVEN?
BY
DAVID H. HALSEY, P.E. BES
We are trapped inside our own bodies. The only way we can communicate with the outside world is by using our senses: sight; smell; hearing; taste; and touch. The level of sophistication to which senses have evolved, genetically and/or learned, will determine how well we can understand not how life began but how life, in the classical and quantum worlds in which we find ourselves, got to this particular spot in the Universe.
The classical laws of physics are obviously friendly to life because we exist! But, the fact that “living” cells exchange information may be the definition of the quantum world. Thus the quantum theory just may turn out to be the theory of information and “is not really physics at all”[1]. Within the quantum world a virus is enormous whereas in the classical world the Universe has that distinction.
The microbes that NASA found in California’s Mono Lake (2010) appear to have evolved by substituting arsenic for phosphorous as a nutrient to survive. This is one more clue that life is very resilient. The more knowledge we gain about the “particles of life” the more we are led to conclude that the Universe was designed to accommodate and sustain life. This paper presents some of these arguments.
The elements[2] to sustain life are continuing to be created in the evolution of the stars. It all begins with the simplest and oldest element, hydrogen, which is the fuel of stars. From this basic element, every other element that forms our body is manufactured as “star stuff”. This part we know. So the question begs: “Was the Universe designed to perpetuate life based upon the design criteria recorded in the DNA helix?”
One could begin to wonder if the complex DNA helix was in fact “made” within the lifetime of the Universe. We’ll never know. However, what appears real, besides the complex magnitude of life on this oasis called Earth, are the “conveyors of life”, comets, which exist throughout the realm of the visible Universe. Comets are made of water ice and most agree that a search for life is a search for water.
Will we eventually accept the fact that we are not alone? Earth’s population of life may be the only atypical copies in the Universe but there are other forms of life in other worlds that have evolved by adapting to the environments of their “planet”.
The prime ingredient that makes the Universe real is energy. When organisms (life) came along the flow of information, not energy, became the prime mover. We know that a unit of life exists because “communication” of molecular information allows for survival in an entropic[3]” world. Once life existed on Earth, Werner Loewenstein says: “Given its abundance, it is not surprising that Evolution chose light as an energy source to drive living systems.” Even the writers of the Bible got it right when they wrote, before life came along: “And there was light.”
A one cell animal, the Amoeba[4], has the capacity to process information that would fill more than 300,000 pages of a book. The human’s body cells contain, collectively, enough information to fill a library greater than any that has ever existed.
Both living and non-living matter are made of the same kind of atoms, yet the living can perform coordinated functions (e.g. the cells in your heart muscles are the same type cells in your leg muscles yet the heart cells all have the same rhythmic beat) where the non-living cell cannot. Thus to repeat living cells do what non-living cells cannot do, and that is extract information from their surroundings.
When a living creature is fashioned, the building structure, cells, is given different job assignments. The aggregate chores are designed to make the whole body function. That is to do those things that give it the best chance to survive in its environment long enough to replicate the DNA matrix and nurture the next ‘copy’, assuring continuance of the specie. This is done by passing on information to and from each cell by a control center (for a human the communicator is the mind which resides in the cells of the brain). Entropy, which in living entities is called aging, will win out after the next generation is produced and nurtured. This disorder that our living body cells go through to become a “pile” of atoms after death is entropy.
The time flow on Earth has proven to be an ideal environment for Earth-like complex life to evolve. “From Everest’s peak to the floor of the Mariana Trench, creatures of one kind or another inhabit virtually every square inch of the planetary surface[5]”. Earth’s incubator has allowed microorganisms, such as bacteria and viruses, to become a diversity of life that is certainly “Earth like”. Life that evolved on Earth can only survive elsewhere in an Earth like environment. However, microbes have proven that they can survive in space and there is some circumstantial evidence that the “seeds” of life planted on Earth did arrive from space. Not only are we made from “star stuff,” but our microorganism ancestors are Universal!
A bacterium called “Deinococcus radiodarans” can live through radiation so intense the glass of a Pyrex beaker, in which they reside, will cook to a discolored fragile condition. These critters can with stand radiation about 1,000 times that which will kill Homo sapiens. A small number will survive three (3) million rads[6]. 1,000 rads will kill a human in one to two weeks. These guys are ‘super bugs’ and certainly are candidates for space travel.
When the first astronauts landed on the moon in 1969, they retrieved a piece of an unmanned moon vehicle, of the “Surveyor”[7] series that were sent to recon landing sites. Bacteria found on the retrieved part, exposed to the moon’s environment for more than seven years, were still alive.
There was an experiment on board the space station that exposed microbes to space. The shuttle Challenger’s crew was supposed to retrieve this experiment and return it to researchers on Earth. Challenger exploded on lift off and the microbe experiment remained exposed to a space environment for more than three years. Examination of the experiment found the bacteria had survived by creating a cocoon around some members of their colony.
There is evidence that microbes can remain dormant indefinitely. About thirty million years ago a bee was killed by resin that over time turned into amber which served as its tomb until now. Within the bee’s belly a microbiologist, Raul Cano, found more than two thousand species of bacteria and yeast that had survived those millions of years of entombment[8]. When environmental conditions in a pristine laboratory reached life support levels, these critters came alive!
Almost every global influenza outbreak involves microbes that are unique to that particular outbreak. The influenza pandemic of 1918-19 killed from 20 to 30 million people from every inhabited continent. Physicians were helpless as “The origin of this influenza variant is not precisely known”. The accepted thought was that the virus originated in China where a rare genetic shift took place to change the virus[9].
Immediately after Halley’s Comet visited the Solar System in April 1910 Earth’s orbit took the planet directly through the comet’s plume. Water[10] latent dust and other debris entered Earth’s upper atmosphere. Some researchers believe the influenza virus that caused the 1918 outbreak could have arrived via Halley’s Comet. Circumstantial evidence leads one to believe that eventually the seeds of life will probably be found in the dust debris left by a passing comet.
The aforementioned evidence drives the search for life on Mars and elsewhere in space. The Viking Landers of the 1970s were design to search for life on the surface of Mars. Several experiments were on board that involved the collection of soil, applying nutrients to that soil sample and analyze the waste that could have been generated by microbes. The first experiment used a radiation marker which gave a positive indication that something alive had processed the soil sample. Further experiments could not verify these results so NASA retracted their findings that life had been discovered on Mars. Later, experiments were conducted on Earth using twin Viking instruments that analyzed soil enriched with microbes and the devices failed.
NASA has a meteorite that is definitely from Mars that contains a fossil that was left by a microbe. The meteorite was examined several years ago without a conclusion. However since that exam new instrumentation have been developed, and the sample is being revaluated. Conclusions are pending.
There are many clues that the Universe is populated throughout with life in the form of microorganisms. The age of Earth almost certainly excludes time for life to originate. It is a logical assumption that the seeds of life originated elsewhere at the microcosm level. “Our DNA is simply too paltry to spell out the wiring diagram for the human brain.[11]”
It’s conceivable that Nature’s purpose for a collection of atoms coming “alive” is to replicate the double helical structure we call DNA. These two chains are wound round each other and linked together by hydrogen (the oldest and most abundant element) bonds between specific complimentary bases to form a spiral ladder-shaped molecule. The molecule can encode vast amounts of data, save it, and pass it on through countless generations nearly error free. Because it operates at the quantum level only a particular arrangement of atoms is possible[12].
All known life on earth, from bacteria to trees, including humans, are all descendants from a single ancestor and share the same kind of genetic material, i.e. DNA. Living cells use DNA to store genetic information and use the same code for turning this information into proteins and living organisms.
For a collection of atoms to perform the chores of life, it would appear to take eons of time to synchronize. These crude groups of microbes must have existed in a slower time zone, thus in the beginning of microcosmic life there was no need for replication or subsistence. The bee entombed in the amber proved this concept. It was not until the “seeds of life” arrived on Earth that the need for renewal became parameters of necessity for continued existence. The primary consequences of the computational nature of the Universe are that it generates complex systems, such as life[13]”. Consciousness may be an emergent phenomenon that does not exist at a lower level of complexity than that to which we have evolved.
Everything that is a ‘living’ entity depends upon the flow of information between the living cells. The time clock within each creature appears to allow this communication to take place, thus the entity that defines us as being alive. What some defined as a “normal” human being may simply be an entity with an internal clock that’s in sync with its surroundings! The life span of any earthy creature, that is to say the aging process, is defined by time and its ability to replicate.
The current state-of-the-art in science cannot define why, what or how ‘life’ exists. Our concepts of life, from birth to death, are constrained by having only observed a single instance of evolutionary life[14]. Since our brains have not evolved to the point where original thought can occur, we have designed a world to live in that is not of the natural world. From this “virtual” world our brain must contend with instincts (genetics) and the rules that are put forth to survive in “our” world. A person’s senses determine how well they can cope.
EPILOQUE
So the two questions that are most important to scientists, “How did life begin?” and “What is consciousness?” go unanswered partly because of evidence and mostly because of the fabric of our philosophical upbringing. Our descendants will continue the quest for scientific knowledge about the basic nature of life’s origins.
The works of Nature are absolute. There are no constants, chaos, probabilities and static states. The whole and all of its components must follow the same ‘laws’. Time allows Nature to progress in a predetermined way throughout its microcosm and macrocosm components. Natural selection through evolution has given Homo sapiens the ability to focus our mind’s eye in whatever direction we freely choose. Our world will, in time, die as the Sun dies, but nature will continue!
“It is what it is!”
DHH_MMXI
[1] Fuchs, Chris 1998: Gilder, Lousia, “The Age of Entanglement”, Vintage Books, 2008, Ppg 334-5
[2] Every element except hydrogen listed in the Periodic Table, up to Iron, was created in the life cycle of a star including the nova (star explosion).
[3] The decay of any object, system and/or critter is referred to as entropy. An antique table is going through a process of entropy; a rusty nail; etc.
[4] Loewenstein, Werner, “The Touch Stone of Life”, Oxford Press, 1999
[5] Wilson, Edward O., “The Future of Life”, Vintage Books, 2002
[6] A radiation unit i.e.-curie, roentgen, rad, and rem.
[7] The unmanned “Surveyor” instruments were sent to the moon to recon landing sites for the Apollo program.
[8] Warshofsky, Fred, “Stealing Time”, TV Books, 1999
[9] In 1918, China was essentially a closed society thus the perfect scape goat.
[10] Scientists have determined that Earth’s water was delivered to the upper atmosphere by comets. A phenomenon that continues today.
[11] Schwartz, Jeffery M., & Begley, Sharon, “The Mind & the Brain”, HarperCollins, 2002
[12] Schrodinger, Erwin, “What is Life”, (1958; repr., Cambridge University Press, 1967
[13] Llyod, Seth, “Programming the Universe”, Alfred A. Knofp, 2006
[14]Heudin, Jean-Claude, Editor, “Virtual Worlds”, Perseus, 2004
Wow!! As a retired teacher of high school science, I feel as I have a better base of knowledge than the average bear, but I bow down in respect to your depth of understanding of how this whole thing works. Most impressive was your admittance that humans may not yet have the ability to gain a full understanding. Let us hope that the current political climate will not lead us into an intellectual dark ages.
re:dhalsey's comment. Well put and very clear. You are an outstanding thinker.
Halsey - now you've gone and ruined the whole thing. I was getting so many good laughs out of the idiotic comments - well perhaps they will continue anyway and in that case you will be forgiven.
What a fraud !
I agree with some of the posters here that this rock fossil means absolutely nothing unless it was brought here in a vacuum from space. This meteorite was found on this earth. Who knows how long ago it crashed and just sat there for eons of time on the ground? Is it not possible that one of Earth's organisms crawled in there and died, then fossilized? Oops! There go the holes in this so-called discovery. Scientists today are just simply not credible. They are soooo eager to shove their evolutionary doctrine down the throats of everyone that they rush to publish every little rock or bone they find without delving too deep into their research. Instead, they hide behind the title of "SCIENTIST" knowing the hoards of blind uneducated followers will believe anything they say. Many people on here love to call those who believe in God, "blind sheep", but fail to see their own hypocrisy in so doing.
Yo, Courtney, the article is about a rather specious bit of research on meteorite microbiology. Your previously prepped apology is not exactly germane -- though yes, you probably ought to brush up on your grasp of evolution if your present understanding evokes this type of sputtering reaction. The ToE is the working scientific theory for biodiversity on this planet. One expects the lessons are extensible to other extraterrestrial environments but perhaps this example does not offer the expected level of experimental control.
You're not one of these "we're the only possible self-aware beings in a universe 30B light-years 'across'", are you? Because, well, that's not even true on our home planet...
"knowing the hoards of blind uneducated followers will believe anything they say."
Then there are the hoards of blind uneducated followers that won't believe anything they say.
Practically the most intelligent thing posted, thanx Fritz.
I can't believe you guys still think that the earth is millions of years old. There is no evidence that the Earth is anymore than 10,000 years old. It's kind of like believing in Darwinism even after he admitted that he was wrong.
I wonder who told you that. Are you new to this whole internet thing? No evidence? Try google and you'll find only about a bilion of them.
No evidence that the Earth is older than 10,000 years? You can't be serious!
Wow, loveless and brainless, so sad....
This should hold true to Religion as well, which it doesn't. I will wait for that proof, no rush.
Please do not waste my time on speculatation of unproved theroies not accepted as truth by the sceintific community
c'mon, didn't you know, that asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter was a planet before it's inhabitants destroyed it with thier high technology (specifically, they blew themselves up by creating an artificial sun somewhere on the planet).
Lucky for us, they were able to send a few lifeboats out to Mars, Earth, and Venus. The ones on Mars may not have made it, since the explosion blew the atmosphere off - the ones who landed on Earth used DNA and sexual manipulation, creating hybrids of them and the primates already existing here, in order to populate the planet before they died out.
Who knows if any made it to Venus, of if they survived. If they did, they are probably far ahead of us as far as tech goes.
Haha had you goin there - but who knows, right? I just have a hunch that the Neanderthals are but a failed experiment.
Nice. :D You can start your own religion in no time with a story like that, I guarantee you. So much gullible people out there just waiting for silly stories like yours to believe in. It's much more believable than scientology ...and any other religion for that matter.
The isotope ratio of certain elements in the meteorite indicate that it is not from Earth. And Just to be clear -- this is primarily directed at those with poor reading comprehension skills -- the scientists quoted are not necessarily against the notion of life having independently evolved elsewhere in the universe, rather they are skeptical of this particular article on the subject. People have claimed that there might be fossils in this meteorite for quite a long time. However, just because the form of something might suggest a fossil, that does not mean that it is a fossil. Most work on this meteorite by this researcher has been questionable, in that his conclusions do not necessarily derive from anything other than wishful thinking: "It looks like a fossil, so it must be one." We have sophisticated tools at our disposal now, and don't always have to go on looks alone, that is why there is criticism.