sFe
Regular Member
Gravity is a cultist following too, guess you never heard of 'intelligent falling':
theonion.com said:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
NASA discovers new life!
- Thread starter Coded-Dude
- Start date
Gravity is a cultist following too, guess you never heard of 'intelligent falling':
usmcbess
Regular Member
Like I said i would venture to say that our sun is a star but there is no empiricle evidence that it is. Anything else that we could compare it to is to far away to observe anything other than the color of its light and radiation emissions. But I will reiterate it most likely is.
I love science! The problem is that there is alot of religion mixed with science in the textbooks. Namely the the religion of uniformitarian evolution. Evolution has done nothing to further any area of science it is only a hinderance to free thinking and study.
I am an unashamed young earth, literal, 6 day creationist. I deny such heresy as the gap theory, day-age theory, and theistic evolution.
This man has had a standing $250,000 challenge to anyone who can provide empirical evidence proving the theory of evolution to be true. http://www.drdino.com/250k-offer
CAN YOU PROVE YOUR RELIGION RIGHT AND COLLECT THE MONEY?
Just to be clear as to not cause undue offense, the last part of that is not directed toward you EYE95.
Last edited:
Tawnos
Regular Member
Why not just take a read through the talk origins FAQ? You can start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
eye95
Well-known member
usmcbess: I still have to take exception with your statement that there is no empirical evidence that our Sun is a star. There is. As I mentioned in my last post, we have observed the electromagnetic radiation coming from the Sun and from stars. The unique signature, evidencing the functioning of our Sun as a star, differs from that of other stars only as much as stars differ from other stars. They are essentially the same. As a matter of fact, our Sun is a very ordinary star--ordinary in size, ordinary in age, ordinary in color. Our Sun is not a very unique star other than it being ours.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution. There is just no known example of evolution from one species to another--which would be necessary for evolution to occur as many claim it does.
Even if transpecial evolution were a possible explanation of how Man came about, it still would not mean that Creation did not happen. A God capable of creating our entire universe is capable of creating a universe that appears to be in the process of evolving.
Science looks at the evidence at hand and tries to extrapolate backwards to determine how we got where we are. Science is ill-suited to this task. It is most effective at making predictions about the future. However, based upon the way things move forward into the future, we often make educated assumptions as to the path followed from the past to arrive where we are now.
Such backward-looking extrapolation cannot reasonably take into account the infinite number of possibilities created by intervening events. For example, you are standing along Interstate 10 near Phoenix. A car is approaching you from the east at 70 mph. If you take all the observations you have made and try to determine where it came from, tracing it back along the path your observations told you it traveled, and then extended that path backwards, it would be reasonable to assume the car came from New Orleans. However, the car could've have entered its observed path in San Antonio or Mobile or El Paso, arriving at those points having followed an infinite number of other paths.
Since science cannot consider an infinite possible set of paths, it naturally focuses on the extrapolated path. This is reasonable to do. It does not produce truth about our origin, but produces a model that offers a reasonable explanation of how physical laws could explain how we got here.
That is how science serves us: it teaches us how things move forward in time in our universe (which is necessary when trying to successfully navigate stairs). Since science does not take into account intervening events when looking backwards, science cannot say that Creation was not an intervening event that put our universe on the path that it is on now, causing it appear to have come from someplace else instead.
I say all of that to say this: One cannot honestly and intellectually use science to dismiss religion. One should not use religion to dismiss science.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution. There is just no known example of evolution from one species to another--which would be necessary for evolution to occur as many claim it does.
Even if transpecial evolution were a possible explanation of how Man came about, it still would not mean that Creation did not happen. A God capable of creating our entire universe is capable of creating a universe that appears to be in the process of evolving.
Science looks at the evidence at hand and tries to extrapolate backwards to determine how we got where we are. Science is ill-suited to this task. It is most effective at making predictions about the future. However, based upon the way things move forward into the future, we often make educated assumptions as to the path followed from the past to arrive where we are now.
Such backward-looking extrapolation cannot reasonably take into account the infinite number of possibilities created by intervening events. For example, you are standing along Interstate 10 near Phoenix. A car is approaching you from the east at 70 mph. If you take all the observations you have made and try to determine where it came from, tracing it back along the path your observations told you it traveled, and then extended that path backwards, it would be reasonable to assume the car came from New Orleans. However, the car could've have entered its observed path in San Antonio or Mobile or El Paso, arriving at those points having followed an infinite number of other paths.
Since science cannot consider an infinite possible set of paths, it naturally focuses on the extrapolated path. This is reasonable to do. It does not produce truth about our origin, but produces a model that offers a reasonable explanation of how physical laws could explain how we got here.
That is how science serves us: it teaches us how things move forward in time in our universe (which is necessary when trying to successfully navigate stairs). Since science does not take into account intervening events when looking backwards, science cannot say that Creation was not an intervening event that put our universe on the path that it is on now, causing it appear to have come from someplace else instead.
I say all of that to say this: One cannot honestly and intellectually use science to dismiss religion. One should not use religion to dismiss science.
Sc0tt
Regular Member
first true alien lifeform, but can we call it alive
Its not alien. It is from earth.
sFe
Regular Member
No, it's not extraterrestrial. Yes it is alien.
"Researchers conducting tests in the harsh environment of Mono Lake in California have discovered the first known microorganism on Earth able to thrive and reproduce using the toxic chemical arsenic. The microorganism substitutes arsenic for phosphorus in its cell components. "
Mono Lake in California is not earth?
perhaps you should read something from NASA, the ones who did the discovering, that isn't so badly written as the OP article was.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html
usmcbess
Regular Member
YAHOO News! Scientists poke holes in NASA’s arsenic-eating microbe discovery
When NASA announced the discovery of an arsenic-eating microbe in a California lake last week, the agency hailed it as a suggestion that life as we know it, well, isn't life as we know it.
"We have cracked open the door to what is possible for life elsewhere in the universe," Felisa Wolfe-Simon of the NASA Astrobiology Institute and U.S. Geological Survey, who led the study, said at a news conference.
[Photos: Breathtaking images of Mono Lake]
NASA's team of astrobiologists had taken samples of the bacteria from mineral-dense Lake Mono -- in a volcanic region of Northern California near the Nevada border -- and starved them of phosphate, the meal of choice for most DNA-based organisms. Instead, the scientists force-fed the bacteria a form of arsenic, and, much to the researchers' surprise, the bacteria continued to grow and flourish on their new diet of poison.
But then other scientists began digging into the paper outlining NASA's research and findings, and they're now charging that the research behind it is flawed.
[Related: Security troubles hit NASA]
"I was outraged at how bad the science was," University of British Columbia microbiology professor Rosie Redfield told Slate's Carl Zimmer. Redfield also posted a scathing critique of the report on her blog.
Redfield and other detractors point out that when NASA scientists removed the DNA from the bacteria for examination, they didn't take the steps necessary to wash away other types of molecules. That means, according to the critics, that the arsenic may have merely clung to the bacteria's DNA for a ride without becoming truly ingrained into it.
The report's detractors also note that the NASA scientists fed the bacteria salts that contained trace amounts of phosphate, so it's possible that the bacteria were able to survive on those tiny helpings of phosphate instead of the arsenic.
"This paper should not have been published," University of Colorado molecular biology professor Shelley Copley told Slate's Zimmer.
So why would NASA scientists make such a big deal out of a discovery that, according to critics, they must have suspected was questionable?
"I suspect that NASA may be so desperate for a positive story that they didn't look for any serious advice from DNA or even microbiology people," UC-Davis biology professor John Roth told Zimmer.
[Related: NASA financial struggles]
A NASA spokesperson brushed off the criticism. The paper's authors have not responded to the firestorm. Needless to say, that posture, too, has drawn the ire of critics. "That's kind of sleazy given how they cooperated with all the media hype before the paper was published," Redfield said.
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...les-in-nasas-arsenic-eating-microbe-discovery
When NASA announced the discovery of an arsenic-eating microbe in a California lake last week, the agency hailed it as a suggestion that life as we know it, well, isn't life as we know it.
"We have cracked open the door to what is possible for life elsewhere in the universe," Felisa Wolfe-Simon of the NASA Astrobiology Institute and U.S. Geological Survey, who led the study, said at a news conference.
[Photos: Breathtaking images of Mono Lake]
NASA's team of astrobiologists had taken samples of the bacteria from mineral-dense Lake Mono -- in a volcanic region of Northern California near the Nevada border -- and starved them of phosphate, the meal of choice for most DNA-based organisms. Instead, the scientists force-fed the bacteria a form of arsenic, and, much to the researchers' surprise, the bacteria continued to grow and flourish on their new diet of poison.
But then other scientists began digging into the paper outlining NASA's research and findings, and they're now charging that the research behind it is flawed.
[Related: Security troubles hit NASA]
"I was outraged at how bad the science was," University of British Columbia microbiology professor Rosie Redfield told Slate's Carl Zimmer. Redfield also posted a scathing critique of the report on her blog.
Redfield and other detractors point out that when NASA scientists removed the DNA from the bacteria for examination, they didn't take the steps necessary to wash away other types of molecules. That means, according to the critics, that the arsenic may have merely clung to the bacteria's DNA for a ride without becoming truly ingrained into it.
The report's detractors also note that the NASA scientists fed the bacteria salts that contained trace amounts of phosphate, so it's possible that the bacteria were able to survive on those tiny helpings of phosphate instead of the arsenic.
"This paper should not have been published," University of Colorado molecular biology professor Shelley Copley told Slate's Zimmer.
So why would NASA scientists make such a big deal out of a discovery that, according to critics, they must have suspected was questionable?
"I suspect that NASA may be so desperate for a positive story that they didn't look for any serious advice from DNA or even microbiology people," UC-Davis biology professor John Roth told Zimmer.
[Related: NASA financial struggles]
A NASA spokesperson brushed off the criticism. The paper's authors have not responded to the firestorm. Needless to say, that posture, too, has drawn the ire of critics. "That's kind of sleazy given how they cooperated with all the media hype before the paper was published," Redfield said.
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...les-in-nasas-arsenic-eating-microbe-discovery
eye95
Well-known member
Cash-starved scientists use sloppy science to get a spectacular result that they were predisposed to find in the hopes of a cash infusion?
Couldn't be.
Couldn't be.
END_THE_FED
Regular Member
(my emphasis)
Alien can also mean different, strange or unusual.
The fact that this organism has arsenic in its DNA, is alien to all other lifeforms currently known to science.
Perhaps you should read a dictionary before you attack another members word usage.
Coded-Dude
Regular Member
yes there is a difference between alien and extraterrestrial. The US is loaded with aliens(legal and illegal).
Tawnos
Regular Member
That's the wonderful thing about science. If someone publishes a paper making extraordinary claims, their claims are thoroughly examined and criticized to ensure they are valid. Contrast that with religion, especially the young earth creationism variety, and you can see that the process is certainly much better at self-correction.
But, of course, if you think the origins of the universe can be best explained by the writings of nomadic goat herders a couple thousand years ago, no amount or reason seems capable of penetrating the field.