Found: A Batch of DNA Molecules That Seem To Have Originated in Space

Let the revolution of the history of life on Earth begin. This theory has been kicked around for a VERY long time, I for one am very glad to see that it's finally being proven.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

yes life was planted on earth from space. maybe life only formed in one spot in the universe and pieces from there get tossed across the universe. maybe on purpose by a higher intelligence.

I say we slice that DNA into some Stem Cells are see what species pops out. Oh wait, didn't they make a movie about that and it went on a genocidal rampage?

I still don't see anything in this article that builds a strong case against the possibility that the rocks from space were contaminated. All the molecules found on it have been found (albiet in diff quantities) around the vicinity of the rock. Just bec it's not a proportional amount, doesn't at all mean the rocks weren't contaminated by the surrounding earth minerals.

I'll take this seriously once it undergoes a large amount of tests and scrutiny. Remember NASA's announcement not too long ago about Arsenic-based life? Then it turned out there may have been a whole bunch of inaccuracies and wishful thinking involved.

I remain optimistic about life elsewhere in the universe. It just seems logically unlikely that Earth is truly unique in that respect.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-Carl Sagan

Very exciting indeed. The possibility that life forming ingredients are sporadically imbedded into the left overs of star formations... Just a few steps closer to understanding the greatest questions. It'd also be interesting to find out that the universe is more robust with life than we originally believed.

@michaelgorby, I can understand your reservation, esp. in light of the Arsenic incident. The only thing that I can show from this article that tends to sway it more toward reality is the quantity and location of the DNA and chemical bases found. If contamination were to be caused by terrestrial objects on non-terrestrial objects, the amounts would be larger in the surrounding terrestrial area, the surface of the non-terrestrial object would have equal or slightly lower chemical counts, and the amounts would decrease as you moved inward towards the center of the non-terrestrial object. The fact that the highest count is at the core of the non-terrestrial object and the surrounding terrestrial area is much lower leads one to look at the non-terrestrial object as the "infector" rather than the "infectee".

But agreed, more research is needed, I'm just glad that they finally found more to support the theory, and the fact that it does help propagate the potential for life to be similar to life on Earth. If all the building blocks are the same as it is being found to be, and water is as abundant as it has been shown to be, the odds of a creature of some form being "Earth Compatible" are increased, and that idea excites me to no end.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

WooHoo! Life had to come from space cuz we really really want it to for some reason! Oooh! Oooh! And there are little green men on Mars! The only thing that finding amino acids in meteors proves is that amino acids form everywhere. They seem to form anywhere you've got carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. So, of course, the building blocks of life must have formed in space in little rocks swirling around in a vacuum because Earth doesn't have carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, or hydrogen. Get a grip folks.

I love the randomness of our home universe.

The question that should be asked and answered is weather or not the asteroids came from our solar system or from another place. Did the dna form from our sun. or did another asteroid from someplace else hit our solar system asteroid and then that asteroid landed on earth?

It seems that when trying to make arguments for Evolutionary development that the believers are willing to accept that life could have come from a chance gathering of specific ingredients on random comets/meteors/asteroids from space, that happened to coalesces/combine to begin life.

But yet the possibility we came to be through Intelligent design seems to be too crazy to even give any thought too.

Unless of course it was aliens and not God.

nice work, more and more evidence of other life in the universe, the fact that life is so abundant on earth is iron clad proof that life is more than just a possiblity to exist on a rocky planet in deep space (is there any other kind of space?), funny how we refer to deep space as if our solar system is the center of the universe

@drchuck1 - "the fact that life is so abundant on earth is iron clad proof that life is more than just a possiblity to exist on a rocky planet in deep space"

If this were true and the universe is so old then why do we seem to be the only ones trying to reach out and say hello? If life was out there don't you think it would have found us by now?(Unless UFO's are the Aliens trying to say hello?)

I suppose life is possible elsewhere but it must be so basic and simple that it produces no traceable energy signatures for us to see or measure. Or at least isn't trying to say hello to any neighbors.

It goes both ways. If things happen in nature because of its own rules, why is neccessary to add a superior being into the scene? The issue is not against such being, per se, but about the need to believe in supernatural explanations when other simpler explanations are around.

(Answering to "But yet the possibility we came to be through Intelligent design seems to be too crazy to even give any thought too.")

It goes both ways. If things happen in nature because of its own rules, why is neccessary to add a superior being into the scene? The issue is not against such being, per se, but against the need to believe in supernatural explanations when other simpler explanations are around.

(Why there is no edit button? :P)

It just so happened to land on a ferret, ie: a concentration of genetic material higher than that around in the soil.

Case solved.

@johnt007871: Poor ferret... Just minding it's own business, probably munching on a cricket and POW! Struck by a meteor.

@MigPosada - "other simpler explanations are around."

How is the chance of a space rock/ice ball/etc..with the right ingredients, falling in the exact right spot, at the exact right time, to start life, "simple"? The chances of Evolution are far greater then that of Creation.

@trtp2

Why not? In this huge universe these things should happen many many multiple times. And even if something has a low chance of happening, it doesn't prove some intelligent being made it happen, it could still happen because it simply did.

It's a universe with a lot of randomness, and if we are in the right direction on physics research, there are multiple universe with different rulesets, we just happen to be in the one that allowed us to appear. We simply are not in one of the (many more and more "probable") universes where this simply can't happen because we could not exist there.

@trtp2

I'm kind of confused if you are defending creationism or against it. In any case, if chances of evolution are greater, and happens spontaneously, why we need to think about intelligent design?

Seeding the COSMOS with DNA, COOL! They say around 95% of human DNA is unknown or even junk DNA and other say this could be an encyclopedia of history of sorts. Perhaps this Rock DNA is a message in a bottle, being broadcasted across space.

Those looking to engage trtp2 in actual discourse be wary... Here is a person who, when confronted with scientific reasoning and evidence, will resort to defending his points of view with religious opinion and bible verses.

No amount of logic will ever persuade someone like him to doubt their holy opinion, as anything to the contrary is obviously the devil testing and tempting them away from baby jesus.

@MigPosada- The chances of Evolution are far greater! Meaning far more astronomical, NOT more likely. Either option is essentially SOMETHING from NOTHING.

"Why not? In this huge universe these things should happen many many multiple times. And even if something has a low chance of happening, it doesn't prove some intelligent being made it happen, it could still happen because it simply did."

The above is one problem I have with so called scientific reasoning. You can't say that because the universe is huge that xyz things should have or must have happened. There's no scientific or factual basis to that.

The proof for me of intelligence design is all around us. The complexity of life itself and the impossibility of it all. To me it seems more impossible for something to come from a random rock or assembly of chemicals then to believe that God was the creator of it all.

Those looking to engage "rolloutthebarrel" in actual discourse be wary... Here is a person who, when confronted with scientific facts and valid evidence, will resort to defending his points of view with scientific opinion and theories.

No amount of logic will ever persuade someone like him to doubt their "scientific" opinion, as anything to the contrary is obviously the obvious truth testing and tempting them away from their God Darwin.

"The proof for me of intelligence design is all around us. The complexity of life itself and the impossibility of it all. To me it seems more impossible for something to come from a random rock or assembly of chemicals then to believe that God was the creator of it all."

Well, it now all goes down to believings. What you see as impossible to come out of nowhere because of being too complex, is what I see as very probable to happen spontaneusly.

Yes, to win a lottery is very very unlikely, yet when millions of people buy it, *someone* wins, it does happen.

So, if we have a universe with many many magnitudes of order bigger that all we do on Earth, doing lots and lots of nuclear and chemical reactions everywhere, in a space with distances and so many stars and galaxies. Yes, I think life can happen, and it can happen simply based on the mechanics of the universe itself. And the mechanics of the universe don't need to be special either, because this is simply one of many.

So, it may not refut the believing on intelligent design, but it does refut most arguments about making it the most logical explanation.

Another possibility is that NASA is needing funding and direction and there is a lack of public support and public money. I remember the last BIG announcement about life in outer space or NOT. No Bucks no Buck Rogers

@MigPosada - The lottery is using numbers we pick and has set parameters. Evolution and Creation require unknowns. Probability in favor of one or the other does not make it so.

Either argument needs something fantastically impossible to happen in order to be the truth.

Only in death will truth be known. Or not to if you don't believe anything comes after this life.

@trtp2

Well, there are 2 levels of fantastically impossible believings.

There is a believing of life based on random things occuring everywhere in the universe, and happened here on Earth.

And there is a believing of an external force or supernatural being figuring all this out. (Which, btw, needs his own explanation of why he/she/that existed and where he/she/that came from, so we are just delaying questions one layer away).

It's your choice to believe that fantastically impossible option. I prefer the former.

Hey, statistics skeptics!

Read up on "genetic algorithms". It's an advanced computing technique that can even be effected using real biological goo to solve problems that are intractable to mathematics (like the Traveling Salesman problem). There's a great example of self-organization for you that you could effect on your own kitchen table if you would only skip bible class for a day.

The only thing required to tease outrageous, amazing, astonishing complexity out of randomness is a mechanism that saves the useful stuff & tosses the rest. Kinda like, I dunno, evolution, which depends on the increased fecundity of carriers of the useful mutation, and reduced reproduction of those without it.

No magic required.

@whatever_dude - The "magic" = space object with the right ingredients + object landing in right place + right conditions at location of landing + something happening that combines the ingredients in the perfect way so that presto life starts + that life somehow mutating in the perfect way to bring all the species of earth into being

Your right it's so simple!

"If life was out there don't you think it would have found us by now?"

Perhaps it's because the universe is some 13-14 billion years old and therefore we humans have only been around for a split second in universe time. Maybe we simply weren't around when the phone rang, so to speak.

@MigPosada - Random and Impossible are nearly the same when talking about either option. Though the chances of Evolution are so astronomical as to be comical.

The universe isn't random! There's design, patterns, and processes throughout.

@LittleJudy - I would hope they would have left a message.

@trtp2

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. 0.001% probabilities > 0.0000001% > 0.00000000000001% > impossible. There is a large difference on each order magnitude.

And the universe is very very large, like, insanely big, so even things with low probabilities are happening, and we are getting proof of that continously.

Patterns, processes, all those things life-like that makes you think there is a creator behind, they can form from randomness, this is a whole topic being studied.

@trtp2 Have you considered that the universe is billions of light years across? How could any civilization communicate with us even if they were only a few thousand light years away? SETI gave up because they finally realized that any civilization would be so far ahead of us that by the time we picked up any electromagnetic signal the civilization would have self destructed as we're heading towards.

@MigPosada - Again randomness everywhere does not equal something from nothing.

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf

@sobm - Could be true as we are destroying ourselves slowly but surely. Though if the universe was here for Billions of years then then by MigPosada beliefs the universe should be filled with life.

@trtp2

Sarcasm and reduction to absurdity (through exageration) are very weak ways to confront an argument.

I think life is very possible to be all around the universe, given the huge dimensions it has.

But it can also be very very scarse, with life forms not being able to contact each other, because of the same astronomical dimensions.

So, they are actually not contradictory ideas.

@rolloutthebarrel, I like science: it does attempt to describe the world around us. I like history and archeology and the various cultures and various religions. I just did a Google search and came back with the statistic that 85% of the world’s population believes in GOD and 95% of the USA population does too. There seems to be a lot of people believing in that invisible friend out there. I know science like to see numbers and make them all add up or put a fact in one’s hand and feel it, touch it and sense it and all. Still it would seem unfair to ignore such a large population of a feeling or sensing of something as like GOD, even if no person can hold it in a container and observe it in a microscope. Finally there is the in between witch a lot of people just can’t wrap their heads around and that is we have been and possible have outside space alien visitors. Statistically the scientific folk can up with numbers to suggest the possibility of intelligent life being somewhere out in space, but as of yet they cannot produce one in hand as yet. Seems the scientific folk do concede of people that exist that they do not see; a invisible friend of sorts. Now if only we can get the scientific folk and the religious folk talking in some kind of middle ground; would that be a progress of some kind?

@MigPosada - I don't think you're going to get anywhere with trtp2. Perhaps trtp2 should watch the Nova special "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". Although it will not sway their religious beliefs, it does clearly explain why creationism is not science. @trtp2 - as far as your religious beliefs are concerned, I have the utmost respect for all religious faiths, however you may be better served discussing them on a non-science based post.

The reason so many people believe in god is because it fulfills a psychological need, and because is a cultural tradition from our ancestors. We can't go further than that.

@rolloutthebarrel, rationally speaking about just what I spoke about before, could there be a common understandable reason for those pesky religious folk who do believe in GOD. You scientific folk just can't' say so easy, well they those people like to fantasize. Let’s see, 7 billion people in the world. 15% of the populations are the rational folk and the other 85% are not the rational folk. That does not seem correct for a society. It would also be fair to say of those 85% folk a great many are as educated at the 15% folk. But do the 15% rational scientific folk just choose to prefer the 85% do not have any education and they are just wondering around in life having a nice fantasy conversation with an invisible friend. It just does not seem fair to discount that 85%, but hey that’s just me. Those 15% that does not believe in GOD, that statistic does not tell us if they are scientific folk or not or even educated too. I am sure many of them have education, but that quantity too is unknown. I think it would just be most helpful to be well educated person and yes you can be scientific too, but keep you heart and mind open religiously as well...... a little.

@BubbaGump

I agree about being tolerant, and I don't think religious people are uneducated. But we can disagree and still be tolerant. I understand people make choices about what to believe but not accepting a believing is not to be intolerant, so I could say I don't think you are right, I don't think that's possible, and still be tolerant.

The problem is, when people think disagreement is some sort of personal attack. It happens with all people regardless of education, and regardless of what they are defending.

So long we can discuss based on arguments and not on gut feeling, we can move forward.

BubbaGump: "Still it would seem unfair to ignore such a large population of a feeling or sensing of something as like GOD"

Equality and fairness have nothing to do with it. If that many people want to think something is true because it is written in an old book and their church leaders tell them so, then they are certainly welcome to think that way.

To me, it makes no difference what a large amount of the population thinks about the subject of religion. Opinions are not evidence. Mass delusion is still delusion.

I do believe I am individually responsible for my own beliefs and I believe the same is true of others. I feel we all individual will find our own conclusion in life as our eyes shut and our last breath leaves our body. In my journey in life, I am trying to learn all I can with my 2 eyes open, while I still can.

The down side to making a conclusion, you may close your mind to further learning or another perspective. The hardest time to understand we are incorrect is when we so passionately believe we are correct...... keep a little vision still open.

As far as I'm concerned, something happened and debating about it won't change whatever it was, randomness or creation.

Also, science doesn't state something is untrue until proven otherwise, the method is to form a hypothesis and test it. Nothing is more or less true until there is undeniable evidence behind it. And yes, there may be more evidence in favor of evolutionism than creationism, but it is not necessarily one or the other. And frankly, there is no scientific evidence in favor of or against a higher intelligence - so while scientifically speaking, there is no reason to believe in intelligent design, scientifically speaking there is no reason to doubt it.

We are so small, to say we know an answer with utmost certainty is very arrogant.

And more importantly, this is a VERY cool discovery.

Firstly, I think there is life that did not originate on earth. But this rock, as I understand it, landed on a planet where there was life, (earth), and, later, some scientists discovered evidence of some of the building blocks of the structure of an important chemical,as well as two of the more important parts of this chemical. I'm afraid that's just an interesting coincidence, not evidence for anything.
-Spouting a fountain of nonsense since 1995-

trtp2
08/09/11 at 5:10 pm
@MigPosada - Random and Impossible are nearly the same when talking about either option. Though the chances of Evolution are so astronomical as to be comical.
----

"Astronomical" implies a staggering immensity, such as the nearly unfathomable metrics of the *actual* universe. In your biblical world, it would only be what, around 10,000 years old? Are you saying the chances of evolution are actually pretty good since your imaginary universe is so gosh darned tiny? Try another adjective; your statement is comical.

our solar system is made from materials from space, hence the earth is made from materials from space, living or not

guys, when your really think about it, it's all bunk! for starters we can trace the beginning of the universe back to the big bang. however we can only theorize what caused it, how, basically. that's all that science can ever do. science no matter how far you go cannot explain HOW. it's like inception, there's always a deeper level, but instead of dreams it's how.

please excuse me for having a faith but i like an idea of having an answer to all the hows. even if it is as simple as "God did it."

seriously though we have better things to do than argue, food's getting scarcer by the day, the USA is going down the drain, the Taliban is actually hanging onto Afghanistan amazingly, and the world keeps heading towards this big pile of sh!t that we call a future. i say we go to mars.

to mars or bust!

"...I feel we all individually will find our own conclusion in life as our eyes shut and our last breath leaves our body, then the theories can lie to rest with us too..."

Funny how discovering DNA molecules in a meteorite can ruffle so many feathers. The implications of this find are staggering if accurate, and merely an amusing distraction if not. In any case, more study is required. What I don't understand is why the creationists are so offended? To start with, creationism is not science. It is a belief, not a theory. To be a theory, you must have tests that can prove and or disprove your theory. There are no such test for creationism. Furthermore, to state that you can accept the answer "God did it" is not only not an answer to any query, it is frightening in the context of science. All that means is that you do not know the answer and you aren't even going to try. Also, please don't post links to Dermott J. Mullan and present them as scientific. He is a self described Roman Catholic astronomer and as such he studies and I use the term loosely, are prejudiced.

So... many... fallacies!!!

@Trtp2

>>>If this were true and the universe is so old then why do we seem to be the only ones trying to reach out and say hello? If life was out there don't you think it would have found us by now?(Unless UFO's are the Aliens trying to say hello?)<<<

If aliens are able to cross the great distances of space to get to earth they are most likely quite advanced. If these advanced visitors observed humans in their daily business of politics, finance and social interaction perhaps they are demonstrating their intelligence by keeping their distance.

This article suggest they could of been at the chemistry inside asteroids and comets can actually manufacture the essential building blocks of biology. Take this a step further combine a few PoPSci articles ago of a gigantic amount of water found at the outside opening of a black hole. What if a meteorite like this with DNA molecules occuring in it flew into this pool of water and grew a much higher level of life, swimming about in that pool of water, hmmm!

@Matsci1: So true. Personally I barely want anything to do with humanity, and I'm roughly on an equal level with the mass of them.

@Bubba: I've been seeing you about for a while now, and I have to say your last comment is the first time you've made a comment that hasn't made me raise an eyebrow. Take that as a complement please. It is possible, but I suspect it would be many many many years before any formal research is launched on the possibility.

@Fallacy, I hope none of my past comments cause you any permanent damage to your eyebrows, sir. Yes, it will be awhile before we can safely explore the front doors of any black holes for microbiology life, this is true. But as DNA is being suggested to develop inside meteorites and while that pool of water is lingering at the front door of a black hole and the size of the water is extreme; I wonder what could be swimming about, just prior to it all being sucked in and gulped gone. Oh, to allow our imagination to linger...

Where is your god now?

@gps93, I inmagine GOD is exactly where GOD wants to be. Why do you ask?

@oldguy - "Also, please don't post links to Dermott J. Mullan and present them as scientific. He is a self described Roman Catholic astronomer and as such he studies and I use the term loosely, are prejudiced."

No matter the scientist or subject ones beliefs are always going to prejudice the results. Many scientists that are atheists have "found" results to "prove" evolution. We could automatically jump to the conclusion that the results are negated based on their beliefs.

Also your comment about NOVA, if anyone is prejudiced against GOD they are. I'e seen the show you mention and have read the book associated with it and the info referenced. It was clear the show and trial were biased and did not clearly show the evidence, made misleading statements, and in general gave partial information.

@rolloutthebarrel - Not sure your comment makes sense to anyone but you. To me Astronomical in the way I used it means NOT likely, NOT Possible, NOT in a BILLION BILLION years.

@MigPosada - "The reason so many people believe in god is because it fulfills a psychological need, and because is a cultural tradition from our ancestors. We can't go further than that."

The reason so many people believe is because they have faith that's it's true. It has nothing to do with psychological need or cultural. Numerous atheistic people have come to believe in GOD and or creation for various reasons. My reason was from the research I did into Evolution and Creation. I was not brought up in a religious home or with any religious education, I was not seeking a cultural or psychological need. I was simply curious about the debate many years ago and my beliefs came to be from that.

"Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians, all have the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions; these are things that are assumed to be true without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

@trtp2, your statements as to why other people believe because of faith or this or that is well you making assumptions aren't you. I take responsibility for my own beliefs, but I do not take responsibility for what other people believe. Yes recently I did a google search of 'How many people believe in GOD', but that is far as my opinion went. I do not know what specifically people believe or how they came to their own conclusions. Have you had a interviewing conversation with all 7 billion people on earth yet?

If you want to make any assumption, let’s make this one. On planet B far far away, lives an intelligent civilize rational race of beings, extremely different than us. Now with that said, I see it as just another life and just another culture. Science is still alive and well and for me, my personal religious beliefs do stay firm. All is well in my universe.

So it appears to me that trtp2 feels that coming to a logical conclusion about observable happenings does not convey the truth of the universe, but choosing one single deity out of the several thousand to be created in recorded human history and say that that specific deity and the story of creation which accompany it must be true(because they must be true) is alright.

Am I wrong in this observation?

@BubbaGump - So those are basically your Opinions/Beliefs/Assumptions. All those equal nothing. There's no facts there. It's all biased thoughts based on what you THINK. Which is what everyone all 7 billion of us think. We all come to our own conclusions based on different factors. Not all because of psychological or cultural influence. So no need to ask anyone anything in that regards.

@Fallacy - Yes you are wrong since Evolution is exactly the same thing. One theory with many variations among many that you or others may or may not believe to be true.

My beliefs are based on my personal research and faith. I "believe" the evidence points one way. As are your beliefs say it points another.

How is evolution a belief when we can actually observe it in real time with bacteria, yeast, etc etc?

Just because you've done your own research does not mean you've arrived at the correct conclusions. This is why in science, unlike religion, we have peer review.

As well why is the story of creation you've chosen to believe in any more credible than the beliefs of the Aztecs?

How old is this meteorite? How long do they suspect it has been on earth?

The rock has DNA on it because earth is filled with DNA and it’s been sitting on earth for thousands of years…..SIMPLE

If they find a meteorite in space with DNA, now that would be a find. This article is nonsense.

@fallacy - you're right on the money as well as rolloutthebarrel with his initial post.
@trtp2 - I don't get your comment that 'Many scientists that are atheists have "found" results to "prove" evolution. We could automatically jump to the conclusion that the results are negated based on their beliefs.'
As a scientist, you cannot "find" results to "prove" evolution. You define and set up tests that can prove or disprove a theory and you do this until all possible data has been uncovered. This is why scientific studies do not end and why poor Pluto has been downgraded. If you cannot define tests to prove and or disprove a theory you are not working within the definition of science.
The reason creationism is not a science is because there are no tests. So although we are viewing the same facts, you do not seem to be interpreting them in any scientific manner.
I'm also a bit confused why you would say that NOVA is prejudiced against GOD, unless you are saying that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is prejudiced against God. To take this a bit further, Christian views of creation which you seem to be espousing, are not the only religious views of creation, nor are they the first explanation of the beginning of life or the one that has been around the longest. Buddhism has been around longer and the ancient Egyptians practiced their beliefs for thousands of years prior to that. The study of those and other cultures can be done scientifically, but expressing their beliefs as facts cannot.
Whatever you believe is what you believe, but that doesn't make it science.

@ALH: Read the link to the NASA article. The "rock" has a significantly higher concentration of the building blocks of DNA than the area immediately surrounding it. Chemicals and other items generally tend to disperse from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration. This suggests that the "rock" did indeed contain the compounds to begin with. The NASA article does make it clear though that this is what the research is pointing at, but NASA hasn't made it a solid conclusion yet. Always good to keep in mind that popsci, as a business dealing with journalism, will always lean to the sensationalist side of things, simply to get more views and make more money.

trpt2, your use of the word "believe" is interesting.

BELIEVE (be·lieve) - Verb (used without object):
1. To have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.

Science does not require "belief" as religion does. We can accept current understandings so long as they are based upon observable, testable and peer reviewed evidence to support the theory's claims. At any time, the entire axiom upon which a theory rests can be overturned with new information. This is completely acceptable, and the best thing that can happen to an idea in the pursuit of truth.

Aldrons Last Dope is a scientist so she would know

@Fallacy - "How is evolution a belief when we can actually observe it in real time with bacteria, yeast, etc etc?"

None of these things have truly evolved. Adaptation is not evolution in the sense that your inferring.

It's a belief because you have to belief that GOD doesn't exist in order for it to be true and correct.

Religion has peer review similar to scientific studies, Thus why various versions of the Bible and research into creation vs evolution by very religious scientists and academics.

@OldGuy - NOVA consistently and regularly tries to discredit GOD it's purely and Atheistic program.

"Whatever you believe is what you believe, but that doesn't make it science."

Completely true. You believe that world is X# of years old. That's based on numerous studies and data that uses certain methods and principles. Creationist believe the world to be y# of years old based on numerous studies and data that uses certain methods and principles. The difference is that Creationists, if they're Christians have the Bible which gives and age. But Non -Christian creationist/Intelligent design believers have no book to base this on.

It's very sad that Evolutionists ignore all the studies done by any scientist that disagrees with their main stream views. Where as Creationists look at an analyze all regardless of the sources conclusions.(

Creationism has numerous scientists you choose to ignore. They do valid research into the same areas as Evolutionist scientists. Because they come to different conclusions doesn't make it NON-science.

@rolloutthebarrel - Your Wrong again, you believe in the Theory of Evolution. You believe the results are accurate and true. You believe that no intelligent design was behind life. I'd be happy if someone could show me proof that there isn't a GOD, Intelligent Designer, and or that we evolved from a single celled organism. I used to believe differently but actually did my own research and came to the conclusion that unless there's an Intelligent Designer there is no life.

@rolloutthebarrel, what is interesting is we have built all over earth these antennas in the hope of hearing some far away aliens. To date we have not met one yet. Statistically we say they are out there. Consider the quantity of monies spent in hopes to hear one out in space, we still have not found any space aliens yet. I think it would be cool if we find the scientist invisible friend, space alien in space. And as they scientist climb down their ladders for doing maintenance of those giant antennas, it would be nice if they come all the way to the ground and be little nice or considerate to us religious folk for caring about our invisible friend too.

Personally, I think the space aliens have visited us many times in the past and exist in our life time now. They are just incredibly intelligent and so stealthy and do not want to be found. We can keep building antennas, but if they wish yp hide and reflect our signals or they exist on another dimension of life, it could be a long time to we do find them. Our scientist could actually be searching for truly invisable people and there is the problem. Trying to find someone who does not wish to be found.

"None of these things have truly evolved. Adaptation is not evolution in the sense that your inferring."

Oh? I apologize, I apparently have no idea what sense it was that I was inferring. Err, no, on second thought, yes it is. Without adaptation through genetic mutation there is no evolution. I apologize, but evolution happens regardless of whether or not you choose to accept the truth.

"It's a belief because you have to belief that GOD doesn't exist in order for it to be true and correct."

Could not be further from the truth, and this is actually a GLARING sign that you either A)never did research on evolution, or B)did all of your research on sites that portray evolution as an atheist idea. Either way, again evolution is real regardless of whether or not you accept it. Why, even the Pope accepts evolution. Did you know that?

"Religion has peer review similar to scientific studies, Thus why various versions of the Bible and research into creation vs evolution by very religious scientists and academics."

Even in context this is very poor support for your "religion has peer review" argument. Peer review in a scientific setting either confirms, or disputes a given hypothesis(prior to it becoming a theory).

In a religious setting(per your example of the various versions of the bible) peer review happens, and if your case is disputed then it doesn't matter you can continue on telling everyone and anyone you can find that your dogma is the right dogma, and they who did the disputing will do the same for their own dogma. Hardly an efficient system to discover the truth.

**I know the following were not addressed to me, but I honestly can't help but feel the need to comment. If you would like to stick to our primary discussion I completely understand. For ease of reading I've decided to put an asterisk in front of my replies.**

"NOVA consistently and regularly tries to discredit GOD it's purely and Atheistic program."

*If by "consistently and regularly tries to discredit god" you mean "presents facts discovered through painstaking hours of research, thoroughly checked mathematics, and copious amounts of physical evidence which reveal the Bible to be a work of fiction", I apologize but that does not make it an Atheist program. Do you feel that your god cannot exist without your version of the bible?

"The difference is that Creationists, if they're Christians have the Bible which gives and age."

*Well, I've got a book written by a man, in which the characters through trials and tribulations learn that the Earth was actually a giant supercomputer, designed to calculate the great question of life, the universe, and everything. So obviously, that must be true. We can simply put aside all that mucking about with the decay of radioactive carbon isotopes and geological surveys. Best just grab your towel and be a frood.

It's very sad that Evolutionists ignore all the studies done by any scientist that disagrees with their main stream views.

*It's not that they choose to dismiss them, it's that they actually analyze the studies of the non-evolutionist studies and find fatal flaws in the evidence gathering, research practices, logic, and conclusions drawn by such scientists that you speak of.

Creationism has numerous scientists you choose to ignore. They do valid research into the same areas as Evolutionist scientists. Because they come to different conclusions doesn't make it NON-science.

*Absolutely true, just because they come to different conclusions does not make it "non-science". What makes it "non-science" is that Creationism "scientists" start with a idea, and then search for things to justify that idea, and disregard those which clearly disprove it. Science however, starts with a question, usually a how or a why. Science then seeks to find the outcome of the question, and the mechanics involved in arriving to the outcome.

I used to believe differently but actually did my own research and came to the conclusion that unless there's an Intelligent Designer there is no life.

*Well, do share your research with us please. Surely if it's enough to move you as such, it should stand up to scientific scrutiny.

If we top 100 commentaries, it would be awesome.

trpt2,

Reading Comprehension: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

Learn it. Live it. Love it.

I did a quick Google of how many different religions there are in the world. “....There are 4,500 known religions in the world...but more, in reality, because there are some that are not well known or documented...." I feel it would be a futile and absurd for me to push my Christian beliefs on PoPSci here. My only point was of the possibility of GOD. Beyond this, I go no further to others.

@Bubba: A major failing point those of religious zealotry have is that evolution and evolutionary science does not and has not ever attempted to disprove the existence of some supernatural being. It only disproves stories of creation. The existence/lack of a supernatural omnipotent being is not part of evolutionary science. There are many many people who can happily balance science with faith.

@trpt2

"Random and Impossible are nearly the same when talking about either option. Though the chances of Evolution are so astronomical as to be comical"

"Not sure your comment makes sense to anyone but you. To me Astronomical in the way I used it means NOT likely, NOT Possible, NOT in a BILLION BILLION years"

astronomical ≠ not possible

also, nobody said life started over night, so a billion years sounds about right

@ Fallacy- "Either way, again evolution is real regardless of whether or not you accept it. Why, even the Pope accepts evolution. Did you know that?"

Again that's your belief that it's real. The Pope accepting Evolution makes it even less believable to be correct. The Pope is Catholic and part of what I look at as a cult.

The problem here as Rolloutthebarrel points out is reading comprehension. I've read and understood. Evolutionists seem to read and ignore what they've read for the same reason they claim creationists ignore what they do. Almost all your arguments against Creationism can be said about Evolutionist Science.

What evidence or research could I show to you that would mean anything to you? Every drop of research pointing to anything other then YOUR beliefs you discredit as un-scientific and un-true.. I can point to this regarding NOVA. Though you'll probably discredit it as all nonsense since it comes from a source you don't believe in.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/16/biased-judgment-day

@trtp2...you don't comprehend sh#t, you don't even know the difference between a belief in religion and science, take your crap somewhere else or just cram it up your as#

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

You either believe in Evolution or you don't.

You either believe in Creation or you don't.

You either Believe in God or you don't.

Seems easy to understand and see the difference.

According to your definition of belief, you cannot say that you know anything, or that anybody knows anything, they simply believe. Not that this is necessarily fallacious in any way, but this does mean that you have to accept the fact that you don't know whether you are alive or dead, you simply believe that you are alive...

Just a little food for thought.

@drchuck1 - wow, that seemed a bit harsh. Clearly trtp2 doesn't understand the difference between a belief and scientific theory, but maybe if he keeps debating the issue it will dawn on him that the difference is that if you have faith, you can believe in anything without proof, like Creationism, but because Evolution is science it demands proof.

@trtp2 - your definition of Belief and later statement that you can either believe in Evolution or not valid. Evolution is no longer a premise, it has advanced to practical theory and as such continues to be tested. Again, there are no tests for creationism.

Again that's your belief that it's real.

*Key point, it's not a belief. It's a natural occurrence which we've studied and given a name to. Evolution wasn't thought of in a lab first, it was discovered in nature. For instance if you and I both went out to the woods and saw an oak tree, would you choose to disbelieve the existence of the oak tree if your religion said they didn't exist?

The Pope accepting Evolution makes it even less believable to be correct. The Pope is Catholic and part of what I look at as a cult.

*A quaint thought, but by definition all religions are cults . You statement truthfully has no point or impact on the discussion.

"The problem here as Rolloutthebarrel points out is reading comprehension. I've read and understood. Evolutionists seem to read and ignore what they've read for the same reason they claim creationists ignore what they do."

*Yes, reading comprehension is indeed a vast problem, however certainly not in the manner you see it. You portray a very closed minded diction in this discussion. This is to say that you, for someone who claims to have been born and raised in an unbiased manner, choose your words and display that you have no interest in hearing anything which contradicts your belief. In effect, guilty of the crime which you blame upon evolutionary science. If you'd like to continually dismiss scientific evidence, please do so with observable facts, not a book written by an ancient people who had no idea what the stars at night were, let alone the geological processes which formed the deserts through which they trudged for many years.

"Almost all your arguments against Creationism can be said about Evolutionist Science."

*I don't recall making specific arguments against Creationism actually. One can usually find these specific arguments by looking for a sentence which starts of like "Creationism is wrong because". Would you like to apply the things I've said today to evolutionary science though? If you do I will simply present you with the copious amounts of evidence supporting the established fact that evolution does exist.

What evidence or research could I show to you that would mean anything to you?

*Well, something that is scientifically demonstration to be true time and time again regardless of time or location is pretty damn compelling in my opinion. Well documented and repeatable experiments are great for that, as well as vast collections of data which support a hypothesis. Is that so much to ask for?

Every drop of research pointing to anything other then YOUR beliefs you discredit as un-scientific and un-true..

*Hmm? Well then, what are my beliefs sir, you appear to know me very well to make this claim.

I can point to this regarding NOVA. Though you'll probably discredit it as all nonsense since it comes from a source you don't believe in.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/16/biased-judgment-day

*Well, I discredit it because it's logically wrong. I do believe the source exists however, as I can visit that website(the source) time and time again, and I can surely have it independently verified that the source does indeed exist. As further proof that the website does indeed exist(much to your chagrin I believe, look at me someone who has been discussing evolution with you believing in a source of creationism!!!) I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting an excerpt:

"Darwinian evolution provides a naturalistic explanation which substitutes for the biblical account in Genesis. Specifically, it describes the origin of life and the origin of all of the different organisms on earth independently of a Creator and without reference to any biblical accounts. Regardless of whether a proponent of evolution might also “believe in God,” Darwinian evolution makes Him irrelevant."

*That in itself is a VERY interesting statement. I'd like to note first and foremost that it is the author of the statement who has proclaimed "Darwinian evolution makes Him irrelevant". In all of the research regarding evolution and evolutionary science(ie: discovering about it, not logically applying the discoveries of science to discredit other items) I have never once come across a sentence which ends with "because of this, your god cannot exist". So to simplify, it is not evolutionary scientists who are proclaiming god does not exist, it is creationists who are trying to vilify evolutionary science. Continuing their statements...

"Molecules-to-man evolution negates the need for Jesus Christ to come and pay the penalty for our sins and thus dismisses the fundamental point of the gospel. If natural selection, death, disease, bloodshed, and survival of the fittest were the means that God used to “create” man through natural selection, then death is not the enemy that Jesus came to defeat. Jesus’ death on the Cross was necessary because of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden. Since death is “the wages of sin” (Romans 6:23), it cannot be the means that God used to create."

*Wow, this bit is all over the place. Well, let's analyze shall we... hmmm... Jesus comes to Earth to pay the penalty for the sins of humans, ie: die. Immediately after stating that, it then says something entirely different, that Jesus was sent to defeat death. Well pick one please. Was Jesus sent to pay for our sins, or was he sent to defeat death? If Jesus were sent to pay for our sins, what is the problem with evolution? From what I've seen, around the time of Jesus's coming the world had some very immoral practices, sinful even by the consideration of the Bible. So sinful people Jesus came to save is not affected by evolution at all. If Jesus indeed came to defeat death, well what went wrong? Much of the rest of the article nitpicks the accuracy of the reenactment of the trial, and disputed pieces of fossil evidence, which is no longer necessary to support evolution.

Now, I'd like to bring back a few questions for you which have gone largely ignored:

What makes your dogma to be correct, but that of the ancient Aztecs wrong? Why is it to you that evolution and your deity cannot exist? Can your deity exist without your version of the bible? If not, doesn't that imply that the bible has greater power than your deity? Why should the bible be taken more seriously than my book about the Earth being a giant supercomputer? For reference, the writer of my book was VASTLY more knowledgeable about the goings on in the world and universe than the writers of the bible.

What if a highly intelligent race wanted to find another intelligent race? Maybe they sprinkle DNA onto some meteorites and send them on a journey, say earth. If we decode the message in DNA we get to learn, where their planet is located. If not, we have a pretty rock to pounder about.

I just watched that episode of STTNG yesterday. I think it's called "The Chase"

@Fallacy Whatever one understands to be true, regardless of whether or not it is actually true, has an impact on how one will interpret fact. This is the simple psychology of the matter. Now science has theories, like that of evolution. These theories have a remarkable amount of fact to support them, but that in itself doesn't make evolution a fact. Evolution by definition takes so many generations that we can not scientifically say that it is factual yet. A single, or even several, genetic mutation(s) is by no means evolution.
I accept evolution to be true, but that is my, as it is your, belief.

@trtp2 Something be less likely to be true because a catholic believes it to be is far worse than someone critisizing creationism because it contradicts something that has some sort of evidence to back it.

Also, you're big on the bible, right? Read Genesis, and tell me where it says there was never evolution. God created creatures of the sea first, then animals, then man, right? Same basic order as evolutionary theory. And I don't know about you, but I have a feeling people thousands of years ago wouldn't understand concepts like evolution to well. Really, the creation story in Genesis could very well be a total oversimplification of the theories science predicts today.

@oldguy-1 First I had to google and figure out what is STTNG, then I added the "The Chase" episode. It took a bit, but I gotcha now. " .....The crew of the Enterprise must race against various rival powers to uncover an archaeological secret that explains the predominance of humanoid life forms in the galaxy....." oki-doke.

@Fallacy - Nothing productive would come out of going into much of what you said. You and several others seem to be broken records. You claim Evolution exists when there is still no irrefutable proof it actually took place the way it would have had to in order for you to be here now.

As to you other questions;

My Dogma, as you say, is based on my Faith that God wrote the bible through man not man writing the bible on his own. Without a Faith in the Bible then you'll never accept it as truth.

Evolution without the GOD I believe in cannot exist unless the Bible I believe is true is actually false. Evolution with a GOD isn't possible based on my understanding of the Bible. So for me God and Evolution cannot co-exist.

The Bible version is irrelevant to the existence of GOD. Most versions of the Christian Bible change very little factually and the majority of the overall message remains the same. Without the Christian Bible I may not know of God but that wouldn't mean he didn't exist. GOD was here before the Bible and people believed in GOD without a Bible. So yes he can exist without the Bible.

The book you reference was written by one author, and not GOD. I suppose you could take the book to be written by a divine entity and worship the all mighty PC or something? There are many religions out there. I believe that only one is correct.

Knowing about the world has nothing to do with the quality of ones writings. To me your statement is wrong simply because the author's knowledge is but a tiny fleck of dust in comparison to the knowledge I believe GOD to have.

@Matt5327 - My comment about the Pope and his Religion is based on research I've done into that group. I stand by it.

The Genesis account, unless not taken literally and unless I'm misunderstanding, still cannot be taken to mean it happened through Evolution. Though if someone finds the original Bible study guide that says otherwise I'd take a look at that.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-08/building-blocks-life-can-originate-space#comment-114574

The bible never says that it doesn't use metaphors. In fact, how do you know that god didn't decide in all his glorious wisdom that the best way to describe the creation of the Earth and evolution and what not was to use metaphors in his writing of the bible?

Just wondering.

Previous comment was meant to be a reply to @trtp2

@Matt5327: "Evolution by definition takes so many generations that we can not scientifically say that it is factual yet. A single, or even several, genetic mutation(s) is by no means evolution."

*Well, actually it is the exact mechanic through which evolution takes place, and is evolution. Perhaps you're thinking of speciation though, which is the evolutionary process which takes one species and over great period of time transforms two isolated(from each other) populations of that species and allows them to become two genetically different species. For example, lions and tigers, or for historical kicks: the finches of the various Galapagos Islands.

@trtp2:
" Nothing productive would come out of going into much of what you said. You and several others seem to be broken records."

*If you'd like to remove yourself from the discussion there are easier ways to do so. Simply saying "I no longer wish to talk about this" is quite effective, and doesn't require you to resort to calling people whom you disagree with broken records.

"You claim Evolution exists when there is still no irrefutable proof it actually took place the way it would have had to in order for you to be here now."

*Where exactly did I specifically claim evolution exists AND it happened in X-Y-Z order? This is definitely a reading comprehension error on your part. I said evolution exists, and it is observable today. I'm sure you noticed the recent articles regarding the multi-cellular yeast posted within the past few months. Perhaps you even commented there and said that the yeast could not have possibly formed a multi-cellular organism in the lab because your belief says it didn't. Goes back to that oak tree analogy which you choose to ignore. Oddly enough that mirrors a complaint you made earlier, something about dismissing or ignoring claims simply because they don't coincide with your beliefs.

BTW for future reference you've contradicted yourself quite badly with the following:

"The Bible version is irrelevant to the existence of GOD."
"Evolution with a GOD isn't possible based on my understanding of the Bible."

*You've essentially stated that your god cannot coexist with evolution because your bible says so(a previous poster pointed out that it most likely does not explicitly say evolution never occurred), but your god will exist regardless of the "version" of the bible. You've roped your own god into a rule-set stating that it only exists so long as your version of the bible exists, and it wouldn't be your god otherwise.

"Knowing about the world has nothing to do with the quality of ones writings."

*So essentially I am allowed to write anything I want, and hold it on the same pedestal as the bible then.

*There are also the other points which I made, and if you can't refute them then please concede them. I will concede that the AIG link you pasted probably made valid points about the historical accuracy of the reenactment of the trial, however that doesn't affect the validity of evolution.

If these chemical components that are the basis of life truly originated from the meteorite and not it's terrestrial surroundings, then it seems to me that it could be quite likely (although it could be just the opposite) that another large astronomical body (such as another planet, comet, moon, ect.,) within our solar system could have caught one of these meteors as well and possibly created some amount of life. Kinda gives one a little hope that NASA might actually find something with all their high grade scientific rc cars that they're flinging around our solar system.

@racer79, what if some distant planet that DID have life ( maybe only basic life) on it somehow was hit by a moon or asteroid and parts of the planet and all its millions of pieces began to scatter across to our universe, some pieces find their way and land on earth. It is said the big bang happen 12 to 14 billion years ago. Earth is said to be from 4.2 to 4.7 billion years old. There has been much time to grow life, collide planets, moon, and asteroids into bits and pieces here and there and yes share bits and pieces.

@BubbaGump, what a beautiful idea. That life, one of the most complex and most beautiful things in the universe, was seeded much in the same way that galaxies are created, through the combination of the universe' infinite bits and pieces.

@racer79, my opinion as people travel about our world and animals and plants too, the same may happen across the Universe, yes bits and pieces here and there. But with that said, I believe a Devine Intervention still could have occurred as well. I leave it to being my own opinion and just that. I do not want people banging they heads or anything on PoPSci. Still we are about to cross the 100 commentators threshold. YEA! I adore free thinking minds.

Comment 98 ;)

The universe in itself, of itself, all by itself is an immensely beautiful thing. The amount of activity that is required for something as simple to us as a cricket chirping on a later summer's eve is mind boggling if you'd take the time to account for all the atoms involved, energy transfers, and every other nuance of physics and biology that makes it possible.

Comment 99! Who'll be be the lucky one?

@Fallacy, yes I agree that it is the mechanic. But the direct definition of evolution, unless you are using terminology different than when the word was coined, is a series of adaptations (which we understand now as genetic mutation) over several generations leading to a species no longer able to create fertile offspring with the one of which it came - thus by definition two different species. This IS the coined and modern textbook definition of the theory.

@trtp2 regardless of your translation, regardless of your interpretation, be it literal or figureative, Genesis does NOT say what creation (the process itself) was like. God says "Let there be…" and so it is. It does not to the slightest imply that animals just materialized out of nowhere, and even a literal interpretation does not in itself refute evolution. Even should you believe that all animals were created in a day, it does not refute (though scientifically crazy) the idea that evolution could have happened in that time.

Also, if you chose literalism, do you believe that God created the Earth? Because Genesis is rather explicit when it says that He formed it out of a formless lump. So really, a literal interpretation states that he found Earth, not made it. Have fun with that.

Even should Catholocism, somehow, be a cult, to refute something because they believed in it is far crazier than anything you are trying to argue against. Because with that logic, I suppose you should refute God, too. Oh, but maybe because they're a cult, they don't truly believe in God, right?

@oldguy-1...yes, it was a bit harsh, but he deserves it considering he trolled this site 18 times and was fed buckets of fish, what he really deserves is to be hit by a speeding bus and then to back up and see "did i hit something" and finish him off, of course bubblenuts holds the record for trolling, they should both be ignored

@Matt5327:

Evolution:(n)The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Speciation:(n)The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

Evolution is the genetic changes from generation to generation, be it over a couple of generations or over many. Speciation is when that evolved considered to have vast enough genetic differences to warrant it being called a new species. Unfortunately this bit is tough, as humans we're not keen on the subtle visual differences in an animal, say pigeons perhaps. There are most likely subtle physical and genetic differences between the pigeons in Boston and those in San Francisco, but we're not likely to name them separate species because (naively) they're just pigeons. On the whole the average person is less worried about speciation and proper taxonomy than they are about whether or not their car gets scratched at the super market.

I have to say im getting pretty bored of having religion forced down my neck everytime i read a post. I believe in facts and evidence! And from the article we seem to have discovered some of the building blocks of DNA within meteorites. This means its 1 of 3 things: 1. its contamination 2. It means the building blocks of life on earth was seeded here from outer space 3. They formed both on the earth and outher space.

If it is true they exist within the meteorites then its a big step forward to the theory of life coming to earth from outerspace and a massive possibility that life is elsewhere in space.

@drchuck1,

Your 1st comment here ended with sarcasm.
Your 2nd comment is nonsensical. I suppose you mean to be clever, but it was just too brief to be understood.
Your 3rd comment is just insulting someone.
Your 4th comment is just insulting someone again.
Your 5th comment is in support of someone else being insulting with your own hateful comments ending with an insult typical for me.
Here in PoPSCi your commenting is anonymous and so we see your free speaking personality uninhibited is just hateful. Is this really who you are?

Well today is a new day. I wish you well!

"If the contamination were terrestrial, one could expect equal amounts of the molecules (or less) to be present in the meteorite samples, certainly not more."

Couldn't the molecules have simply been stored better inside the meteorite and thereby protected from outside forces which would have washed them away? This is still not hard core evidence, mere speculation.

@BubbaGump, although I personally don't believe that any divine intervention was necessary for the creation of life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole, I must agree that it is entirely possible. I am a patron of scientism (this is NOT Scientology) which holds the belief that everything CAN be explained by science/the laws of the universe and since science actually allows for (in fact, according to statistics, it predicts) the existence of a higher being, I must as well (that is not to say that I think that this higher being will be anything like what any religion has defined as a god, however, that is simply a matter of oppinion).

Anyway, @Fallacy, I couldn't have said comment 98 better myself. The universe is an overwhelmingly beautiful and awe inspiring thing. I believe the world we live in would be an immensely better place if more people, no matter what their belief, would take the time to understand enough science to be able to truly grasp that beauty.

@Fallacy

"Evolution may in the long term lead to speciation, whereby a single ancestral species splits into two or more different species."

The case I was using, in which the species has become a different species than it's ANCESTOR, is then, evolution, and speciation.

And even if I am somehow wrong, explain to me why we still call it a theory, if the facts are as concrete as you say?

And if you want a different example of BELIEF being a part of science, try the general theory of relativity. We've been assuming it true for a long time now, encorporating it into many of our calculations because it worked. But the first direct evidence, which isn't even very strong, never showed up into earlier this year. But where would science be if we didn't take it for granted? Behind. Far behind.

And NOT speciaton. My keyboard does that sometimes.

@ManOnFire6469, definitely a valid hypothesis, though it does cause one to wonder how the meteorite could have been permeated with the molecules in the first place. Now granted I'm nothing close to an expert on meteorites, but it just seems as if it would be hard for those molecules to get inside the meteorite without the meteorite having gone through serious geologic cycling.

Nice update on the science of where life might have come from. I recall an article from the sixties (I believe)... perhaps in Popsci or Popular Mechanics. The article speculated that comets might have been the source of much of the Earth's water, and might also have provided the chemical building blocks for life on our planet. It's good to know that someone has picked up the ball up again, and is taking a fresh look at this interesting topic.

"God created man out of the dust of the earth, that is, from matter, from which all material things were created in the earthly world, and He breathed into his face the spirit of life; that is, He gave him a spirit, free, intelligent, alive, and immortal, according to His image and likeness, and man came into being with an immortal soul. By this "breath of God," or immortal soul, man is separated from all the other living creatures."

I have always regarded this as the truth, but this thing about the rock is a pretty neat idea. I really don't know what to think?
I suppose I'll have to go with the rock then.

Any geneticist, or even freshman Biology student, will know that this is NOT DNA!!! DNA consists of chains of these simple molecules. The chains are the essence of DNA. The chain nature of DNA is what allows it to replicate and encode genetic information. Without forming chains, these molecules cannot be called DNA. These scientists haven't found even 2 of these molecules hooked together. NO CHAINS. NO DNA. The title of this article is misleading, and I would say dishonest, because PopSci knows better. They seem to simply be trying to attract readers. However, in the process, they are misinforming these readers. Popular Science owes the world an immediate apology and retraction.

Science contaminated by wishful thinking isn't science at all - it's called dogma. Every time someone makes a new "discovery" like this - they immediately start foaming at the mouth and denouncing creationists. I can't say I blame them, it goes both ways, but the real victim here is good science. Knowledge is lost as genuine interest in the truth is subsumed in the sound and fury of religious fervor. Dogmatic adhesion to evolutionary theory is no less a religion than clinging to a belief that the earth is flat. Until scientists are willing to let the chips fall where they may, and stop trying to control their fall, science will continue to deteriorate as a discipline. I don't care what the outcome of all our study may be, I just want to be sure that the outcome represents a sincere effort to learn the real truth - not someone's version thereof. People should spend less time talking about the "evidence" and let the evidence do its own talking. Sigh.

Science is FACT based
Religion is FAITH based
The two are mutually exclusive
If you are interested in the fact truth stay here
If you are interested in superstition based faith go away

On another note, let me add this comment on the entire God-damned debate:

*snorrrrrrrrrre*

Even though the DNA may have been created in 'space', that doesn't mean that it couldn't or wasn't created here on Earth as well. I'm pretty sure this planet contains every thing that is required just as that asteroid! lol

@ Mawech:

What a lovely statement of Faith. Stating definitively that faith and reason are
mutually exclusive is itself a faith-based declaration, since you must make an unprovable assumption in order to say it. Absolute certainty is the death of reason. Arrogance = Ignorance. As I stated before, let the chips fall where they may.

In honor of the 117th comment..

Here is a recent thread covering the same things you are all talking about on this one.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-06/lovotics-engineers-attempt-create-means-human-robot-love

@Sweepya, noting that other link and it being 117 is awesome. I guess what goes around comes around. Good observation on you part, cool.

Most major religions were founded centuries ago when no one knew very much science. No one knew why the earth shook, why volcanoes spewed lava, why life was so diverse. Religion provided answers to adherents. Sadly, modern adherents still cling to tenents of faith, formed in non-scientific eras which were rife with superstition and the supernatural hand of God(s). We owe it to ourselves, people of the 21st Century, to rid ourselves of this rigid, faith-based thinking, and look to our intelligence and centuries of learning to assess our universe and the wonders within it.

@BubbaGump...actually your comments have been better of late, you still do a bit of trolling, as for being anonomous, that's why you trolls get away with it, if you don't like being insulted then quit trolling, that last comment was meant for all the trolls

@fishin_tchr...exactly

@drchuck1, GOSH OH GOLLY, thanks for kinda sorta giv'en me a weak little oh compliment there. I'll take that to the bank there good buddy. Woopee! I look forward still to all your future amazing insightful intelligent comments that all readers together will enjoy. lol, snort....

HEY PEOPLE! HEY PopSci! It's NOT DNA!!! See my post above (11:53 AM).

@netgk, I appreciate you point but are you sure to critize PoPSci for not being accurate of clear, they began their article with this ".....scientists have found evidence that some building blocks of DNA--including two of the four nucleobases that make up our genetic code--found in meteorites...." They said SOME building blocks of DNA and and 2 of the 4 nucleobases. So, are they really misleading. I don't have the knowlege to answer that question, but in general of their wording it does not seem to be misleading like you suggest.

@fishin_tchr - Although you're correct about the foundations of religion, I'd hate to s see what would happen to humanity without it. If an assumed of 75% (or any other statistically inaccurate number you like) of people follow some form of religion and if even a minute percentage of that number only have a sense of morals because they're afraid of godly retribution.... I'd rather nature take it course.

@Netgk

Like bubba has pointed out, maybe you should read the article and not just the headline.

@oldguy-1

An apologist, I see. You must consider that replacing the fear of god with a value for only this life, would ensure a much more morally rich environment. Most war and violence in this world has been subject of religion. Education replaces religious tradition. As an atheist, I have no malicious desires manifesting because I do not fear a god. Rationality replaces those erroneous faiths and beliefs. People do what they need to to survive. We will not spill eachothers blood with a better understanding, we'll prevent it. We will love this life. And have no regard for a next.

@oldguy-1, piece of trivia for you sir, we humans are born with the instinct of guilt, empathy and compassion. Yes it's also modified by our social environment as we grow, but most of us have it inside already. Those humans who do not feel guilt, empathy, compassion tend to be sociopaths. Another instinctive trait we are born with is to lie. We lie for 2 reasons. We lie to get out of trouble or we lie to acquire something. It’s only later in our social up bringing that we try to lie less often. Once upon a time it was also considered morally acceptable if I possess the power to take your property and you are to week to stop me, you deserve to lose it. For a time, society thought this to be acceptable. Even recent times as well as the USA decided it was acceptable to remove the land from the American Indians. The USA people at the time were predominately of Christian faith too. Ooops, did I open a can of beans.

Is it just me or isn't this the equivalent of finding the letters "a" and "b" written on a page and claiming that we've discovered a batch of Shakespeare's sonnets - more or less.

It is always possible that any intelligent design had nothing to do with humans but rather just life. I personally think it is the human ego that requires us to be the final product of intelligent design that distorts any other logical evaluation.

Our concept of time can elevate human existence into importance when in the scheme of things when we are just a blink of an eye in time.

If humans still exist 65 million years from now I will consider us to be in the running for being the end result of evolution rather than just mammals who got lucky.

@von333

It's just you.

@hayesatlbch, I have my own faith and well for me it works and I will leave it at that, because I am made up of 95% junk DNA. I am just happy to be here and able to ponder scientifically the wonders of all my Dear LORD has made.

Life and intelligent life could have been abundant in the galaxy for billions of years while our solar system was still a dark, swirling cloud of dust and gas. Advanced civililations could have come and gone billions of years ago, and some could still be with us. I believe it's probably all correct and our dust and debris in a big part could have come from those systems. Also, if conditions on comets and asteroids are conducive to creating these compounds then a hospitable environment like Earth might be much more capable of creating them than previously thought.

@ Sweepya - surely we realize that it takes far more than just adenine and guanine to synthesize DNA? Even if we had all of the "letters" (adenine and guanine plus thymine and cytosine) and they were not arranged in a format which gives the nucleobases "meaning" (meaning that is relevant to life) we would have nothing more than the chemical equivalent of a pile of scrabble squares. So, now some chemicals on a space rock prove panspermia? This claim just looks like scientific "sensationalism" to me - an overblown claim to support a dubious theory. It's really no different to me than when I hear of people worshiping a kumquat on which they claim to see the face of Jesus. They're seeing what they want to see.

Sure, it's possible that the pyrimidine bases could have self organized to form DNA. But, I'm a true skeptic. I truly believe in the scientific method. Test the hypothesis by putting all of the ingredients together and seeing if they can self-arrange into DNA under the right conditions. We hypothesize that objects fall at the same rate of speed - we create a vacuum and drop a bowling ball and a feather and they both hit the ground at the same time. Hypothesis proven. Voila! Science. We hypothesize that objects fall at the same rate of speed - we find a bowling ball indentation on the ground next to a feather imprint. Hypothesis tickled and giggling but not proven. Voila! Faith.

@Hobittual, the old quotations of the bible are very beautiful and at times mysterious. People scribe things with the local knowdlege they had at the time and then past it on to others to be interpreted and shared with others of the local knowlegde of the time. Scientist can rip religous books to tiny pieces and if it was written leather, they will rip it down to it's tiny DNA components too. Religous teachings are for you inner being, lessons to learn and take you through life. You can keep you faith, your religion and you can use your mind that our dear Lord has given you too; its ok. And this is my little song and dance from me, my opinion.

@von333, the article, and the majority of comments are hypothesizing on the possible implications of these chemicals possibly forming in space. Both the article and the majority of comments have not made any claim stating that this IS where life came from or that this definitively means that life could form in space. We are simply HYPOTHESIZING on the possibilities, and obviously, without a hypothesis to test, you have no scientific process. So thanks for bashing the scientific process that you so strongly support.

I forgot to also mention that to prove that DNA cannot randomly assemble from its base components you would have to simulate every possible environment in the universe, which would be kinda hard, which is why it hasn't been done.

Hick, shucks, have we beat this horse enough? Is it dead yet? He-ha!

Well Bubba, stick a fork in this one, I think she's done.

@Von333

So, are you assuming that this article, the find, and the theories of extraterrestrial origin of our DNA now supported by base nucleotidues and other building blocks was discovered by kids in the sandbox? Do you think this would be such an important find if some common person like you had stumbled upon it?

I have a feeling that the researchers and scientists behind this project are probably more educated than you and have probably considered the null's.

It's a magnificent find. If you can't respect that or understand it, leave. We don't need any of your help congesting this thread with more nonsense. We already have a ton of volunteers..

My advice is for you to take a molecular and cellular biology class maybe even general physics when you get to college. Works wonders and explains them.

@sweepya - I hadn't thought I was defending something controversial. I was merely point out that there is still a percentage of the population that requires religion to provide them a set of morals to live by. Most religions have the same basic set of tenets. Some hold life more sacred than others and there are differences on what constitutes a sacred life. Although you and I and many other people may have no need for divine guidance to provide our morals, that cannot be said for everyone.

@bubbaGump - I personally cannot state that everyone is born equally with respect to empathy and compassion. I do not know if that is part of our chemical makeup or learned behavior. I am by no means an expert. I do know that there are people who act with moral ambiguity, and that is where otherworldly punishment / rewards are useful to keep them on track.

Simply, if the fear of going to hell is what keeps even 1 out of a 1,000,000 people from trying to kill me, I'll take it.

@oldguy-1, the legal right to bear arms is a wonderful deterrent to enter you home and kill you too. I am sure it even makes afraid an evil scientist or a bad atheist.

@The Comments Regarding the Hyped Up yeast experiment that basically proved the yeast can do what it was supposed to do.

"Like many fungi, brewer’s yeast is known to engage in “dimorphic switching.” Programmed into its genome is the ability to change forms depending on conditions. Brewer’s yeast is considered unicellular because it usually is. However, under certain conditions—nitrogen starvation, for instance—it becomes a multicellular filament. A study7 in 1993 identified three genes responsible for this branching growth. Thus, genetic information to become multicellular did not evolve in Ratcliff’s laboratory; the information was in the genome all along.

Due to this dimorphic nature, some evolutionists are skeptical about Ratcliff’s interpretation. They believe this yeast has a multicellular evolutionary history with “a vestigial ability to become multicelllular, rather than evolving into something entirely new.”

From - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/07/02/news-to-note-07022011

What if a chemical reaction is life itself, however brief that chemical response occurred? Is H2 & O alive as the combine to form water, until the movement was complete? Are you alive as you move about your day, until you stop moving about too? I suppose quantity of time could have merit to life then. Or is it your comprehension that actually makes you alive. Why comprehend at all; what use is it, since eventually you will stop chemically moving one day, Mr. Scientist. Perhaps the reason you have the ability to comprehend is to understand your maker at the end.

This is interesting and scary, so disproves the God theory then.

666gamer.com

@racer79 - One word. Hyperbole. I sometimes employ that because I try not to take myself too seriously and...it's fun. Surely, the article does not claim proof but the panspermia concept (mildly implied) has always seemed like reaching to me - for various reasons. That's despite one of my favorite scientists (Francis Crick) being a famous proponent. Loved him - a little "meh" on the concept, though.

@Sweepya No. I'm assuming it was discovered by very intelligent people who have great interest in the subject, a vested interest in the theory, and human frailties like all the rest of us. Many very intelligent and educated people throughout scientific history have been very wrong about the theories they espoused so it's a fallacious statement to assume that education and intelligence are proof against inaccuracy. Since I don't believe in people (intelligent scientists or no or gods for that matter) blindly, I'm more likely to want to see actual DNA and not "building blocks" of something as information dense as DNA. Forgive me. If that offends you and causes you to so self-righteously ask my leave-taking of the discussion, I have to question whether you might be a fundamentalist of another sort. All real science starts from questioning and, I must say that, if scientists find a couple of stones on the moon, they might suggest that the Great Wall of China was built in space - but I would probably question that as well. At least ask for something more. I mean, the article doesn't claim that this is proof but it does strongly imply more than I think is warranted - despite the fact that I must be a simpering, uneducated half-wit prone to flights of nonsensical fancy.

Sure, it's an interesting find but the problem isn't molecular and cellular biology or physics because those disciplines only tell us composition - what DNA is made of. Neither has answered the how of configuration - how it was assembled into such an information dense matrix for life. Chemical evolution of DNA (or RNA) is problematical to me because DNA is the very system by which the evolutionary "adaptations" are preserved and passed on. What serves that purpose for the chemicals which are busily assembling themselves into DNA but have no DNA to keep track? If the question makes me an idiot, then I'll gladly assume the mantle. The last Scarlet Letter of our great time is to appear to be in disagreement with our "intellectual betters". It matters not if they are right or wrong - just that we don't look ridiculous. Call me an iconoclast. The debate rages.

Let's just say that, on a public forum of opinion, dissent is a distinct possibility. Answering dissent with scorn, personal attacks and insinuation of baser intelligence in no way proves or disproves the opinions on either side - a prime example of why American politics is so dangerously ineffective these days. Too many true believers and those willing to exploit them...

@trtp2 - I'm not sure if you are still trying to claim creationism is science or if your trying to convert people. Anyway, maybe this can help you.

From -http://www.evolvingscientist.net/2011/06/why-dont-we-care-supernatural.html

We may be looking at the foundations of life (as we understand it to be right now)... from the point at which all else connected and grew.

On the other hand, we may be looking at the remnants of previous life that was sent adrift like a message in a bottle.

And then again, the universe may be one big garden and this stuff like pollen carried around from flower/planet/moon to flower/planet/moon.

I wish I was younger. I was there for Mercury and Gemini and Apollo. I want to be here for everything else.

@ von333

Here let me post this as a reminder....

"The LC and MS analysis separated and analyzed the component parts of the samples and found adenine and guanine, two of the components of the double helix that make up the code that tells our cells what to do. They also found hypoxanthine and xanthine, which don’t factor in to DNA but are used in other biological functions.
But more interestingly, the researchers found three nucleobase-related molecules: purine, 2,6-diaminopurine, and 6,8-diaminopurine. These last two are rarely used in biology, but they are like analogs for nucleobases--the same core molecule but structurally slightly different. That’s really important because if the meteorites were terrestrially contaminated, they wouldn’t be there (because they are not used in biology). But if the chemical processes going on inside an extraterrestrial object really are churning out prebiotic stuff, then you would expect to see all kinds of nucleobases--the ones used for biology, and others that aren’t."

--

"No. I'm assuming it was discovered by very intelligent people who have great interest in the subject, a vested interest in the theory, and human frailties like all the rest of us. Many very intelligent and educated people throughout scientific history have been very wrong about the theories they espoused so it's a fallacious statement to assume that education and intelligence are proof against inaccuracy."

This isn't a theory. These finds are significant because they support the construct of original DNA. It's not something we question like "Hm, how do they know those are the building blocks of DNA? I don't believe them. This is no different from finding letters "a" and "b" written on a page and claiming that we've discovered a batch of Shakespeare's sonnets." It's a bit different from human convention of language. A and B are not half of Shakespearean sonnets. If we had only found xanthine on this meteorite then it probably wouldn't have been significant. But when Purines Adenine and Guanine, half of the nucleotides needed for DNA, and diaminopurines are found on this meteorite, it stops the car.

It's more like finding phrases and quotes from Shakespeare sonnets.

--

"Since I don't believe in people (intelligent scientists or no or gods for that matter) blindly, I'm more likely to want to see actual DNA and not "building blocks" of something as information dense as DNA. Forgive me. If that offends you and causes you to so self-righteously ask my leave-taking of the discussion, I have to question whether you might be a fundamentalist of another sort. All real science starts from questioning and, I must say that, if scientists find a couple of stones on the moon, they might suggest that the Great Wall of China was built in space - but I would probably question that as well."

You can't exaggerate and imagine nonsensical findings like religious zealots do for argument sake. That's just unreasonable. Scientists wouldn't make a claim like that. So please, don't get off on a rant.

As for your inability to blindly believe, good for you. But take your skepticism to something a bit more obtuse than DNA molecules. Like I said above. It's not an underdeveloped theory of process like quantum mechanics where you question and dissect certain ideas.

I want to construct several different housings for my pleasure. They will all be built in my woodshop. I will build wooden toys, bird houses, dog houses, many multiple square foot homes, and many multiple story office buildings. I am going to use stone for the foundations, & using wood & hide glue, & dowels, & mortise & tenon for all the joinery, & soy based oil paint & stains & thatch for all the roofs. I made everything from natural renewable resources.
Now everyone is looking at my handiwork and saying that essentially the office buildings all evolved from the bird houses. The trouble is I still have many birdhouses, doghouses, homes & office building all over the place. They will not acknowledge all my handiwork and are blind to the obvious facts. (?) I am still making toys & birdhouses.
And another very stupid observation they have made is about water; H2O. You can’t destroy it or change it, or make it and it came from a few comets that were ice when they hit the earth? Are these really scientist?

@Eric Barkley, A sir, I do not follow you. Perhaps you could just elaborate better on your thoughts, thanks.

@Eric Barkley

I can sort of see what you're implying. That's an interesting comparison. However, we're talking about origins of life. Where DNA originated from. It's not quite the same as housing materials. Many people don't quite understand how DNA was composed from amino acids very long ago, at the beginnings of evolution. A theory of process known as Abiogenesis is what I personally follow in regards to the origin.

As for claiming that it is a stupid observation that water came from comets.. It's a theory. Hydrated minerals of asteroids and meteors that slammed into our beautiful blue, green and brown during the bombardment period of our earths creation. The Hydrogen/deuterium isotopes in asteroids are similar to that of the hydrogen/deuterium isotopes of our ocean.

Hydrogen bonds are the bonds of responsibility in DNA. Holding those 'tides together.

In response to all those religious comments that have nothing to do with the discovery of knowledge:

The newest religion seems to be one of the worship of self. The people who worship this deity often hide under a latin name of Science. I capitalized it to show respect. The study for the gain of knowledge seems to be lost on the religious Scientist (not to get confused with a religious scientist). They do not wish to entertain the idea that they may need more study and that mathematical probabilities are not a sure thing. Sure mathematically the a magic man in the sky is less probable than random convergence of atoms to form molecules to form amino acids to form cells that house, nurture, expand, and proliferate DNA... but that second thing is still pretty darn improbable.

So since we are men of useful science (and women too) lets play the odds. If I place my energy and resources on the favorite, and win, I will die with the knowledge that life is random and meaningless. If I lose, I lose everything no matter how little I bet.

If I bet on the underdog, placing my energy and resources on any faith for which a higher power and not the self are glorified, and win... I win it all baby! If I lose... then I have lost nothing because I will have learned for fact that life is random and meaningless.

The amount of risk your personally wiling to take with your energies and resources is individual and I recommend much meditation on the subject before committing it all in a single bet.

@Sweepya - "This isn't a theory. These finds are significant because they support the construct of original DNA. It's not something we question like "Hm, how do they know those are the building blocks of DNA? I don't believe them."

No, my assertion was that this was being used (if not by the article then certainly by you) to prop up a theory and that it isn't quite strong enough to do so. It's obvious that these are the building blocks of DNA but there's a huge gap between "building blocks" and the finished product. Two thirds of a codon does not a DNA molecule make. It's not that I don't believe in the "building blocks" - I just have difficulty with the concept of the building blocks somehow assembling themselves. Just as I would have of those sonnets you mention writing themselves. I still haven't heard anything that completely persuades me of that possibility - not billions of years, not clay matrices, not organic soups, not spontaneous abiogensis. Not that it's unimaginable (I can imagine anything)- just seemingly untenable. Definitely something I would most assuredly like to actually see reproduced but there's that pesky billions of years to make that an impossibility which means I just have to assume it and look for evidence that alludes to it. I guess then I'll be intelligent.

"It's a bit different from human convention of language. A and B are not half of Shakespearean sonnets. If we had only found xanthine on this meteorite then it probably wouldn't have been significant. But when Purines Adenine and Guanine, half of the nucleotides needed for DNA, and diaminopurines are found on this meteorite, it stops the car. It's more like finding phrases and quotes from Shakespeare sonnets."

Granted, it's not a one to one comparison when juxtaposing coding sequences with human language conventions but the general idea is much the same. Certain sequences have "meaning" which can be translated. Information is transferred through some translation process - a rather sophisticated one. In the case of sonnets, phrases which encapsulate concepts; in the case of DNA, long sequences which translate to genes/proteins which synthesize the complexity of life. Just as letters derive meaning from their arrangement, the Purines derive meaning from their arrangement within DNA sequences. A recognizable though truncated sequence might qualify as "finding phrases and quotes from Shakespeare sonnets". This, however, qualifies as random, floating letters of the alphabet. Though granted, not just "a" and "b" - certainly not a sonnet. More like "a-n" all ajumble with a random semicolon thrown in for good measure.

As I said, the find is interesting and significant just for the sake of the added knowledge but not conclusive of self assembly of DNA in space as some have seemed to infer, though I can understand the speculation. I'll just keep a sober eye on what we find as time progresses. I bid you adieu. There's only so much time in a life and life is for the living - unfortunately, I don't have that billion years...

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."

- William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)

The root word of "ignorant" is "ignore".

GOD is man's greatest creation. Religion is Science watered down and camoflaged for those who are ignorant. Hopefully one day man will have evolved to the point where religion is no longer necessary.

@von333

We would certainly need more than what is available on this meteorite. I think the article is implying a "source" though. If these purines be available, maybe the pyrimadines as well. It only supports spontaneity in my eyes. In any event, a beautiful find.

It is a tragedy that we most likely will not see the days when science will be free from religious oppression and be able to truely be expressed.

Currently reading "Physics of the impossible". Great read for anyone anticipating force fields or invisibility cloaks. Soon, my friends, soon.

@DJ_D

I believe you're referring to pascals age old wager..

The interest I have to believe a thing is not proof that a thing exists..

Pascals wager is an argument for feigning belief, which is dishonest. In addition, it is absurd to think that a god, being just and omniscient, would not be able to see through this deceptive strategy on behalf of the "believer", nullifying the benefits of the wager.

What a silly thing to suggest, sir.

@Dj_D so wicked confused....are you saying that it is time better spent believing, and having faith, and praying in my room than trying to progress the nature of man? I have often wondered about the reason for creation in the christian religion. Often other creation stories have the purpose or reason for creation in them. Not so much for christianity. my guess is that god wanted to create something, to see it progress, see it tumble fall down, pick itself up again. I would compare this with a childs parent. So i would expect god would want us to continue that legacy, of striving, and pushing our bounds even if we do become mroe distant from him at times. So I would say live on and push the envelope. BTW this is an awesoem discovery of course mroe research is need, so is the joy of science, and why theories are so hard to make into laws, because to do so we try very hard to make sure we get it right the first time.

@ Sweepya I was actually unaware of who started the "betting on faith" postulation. Thanks for giving me more research topics. I was using it as a proof against the arguments that "Science has overwhelming evidence to suggest that a god or gods don't exist." A similarly common theme. I was trying to equate the skewness involved in betting, and not the bet on faith at all. People of faith do not gamble with their deities.

To explain skewness, it is the perception of the likelyhood of winning, like people who play the lottery. The odds of winning are so small but the bet is also small, the winnings are enormous and the benefit to the player is the excitement rather than an actual return on investment. I was attempting to show that people of faith have this excitement about their deity that is absent from making a bet with better odds and less return that Science has to offer. I apologize to anyone if my poor explanation led them to think I was advocating a gamble of faith.

@lanredneck If you are without faith the term wicked holds no meaning from your lips. If your faith is in self and not a higher power then I accept your term for wicked as a complement for it means exactly the opposite, than if I used the term. Assuming you meant something at all by using the word wicked, I will thank you for your complement.

Our Science is one of God's many designs. The two exist together. There is not one without the other. The more we understand science; the more we understand God and the intelligent design. Things that can be measured and things that cannot be measured both exist. We are only human to separate the two in our search for understanding.

@DJ_D

No worries. I read you now.

@Godscience

Are you meaning to tell me that god has let you in on a secret and forgot to tell the rest of us? Well that isn't very fair. Everyone! Listen up! Godscience understands everything!

Godscience... Don't you think that the vastness and intricacies of this universe are a little excessive for a game board? Make billions of planets and only one that sustains life? Sir, let me ask you, if your god exists with the logic that something can't come from nothing, where did your god come from? And where did the materials for this universe come from? And if we follow the logic that a design must have a designer, why was your god created, and the god before that?

Flawed.

@Godscience. BINGO!

Godscience is very right. But take into consideration that most religions are perfectly formulated to be undisproveable and can explain the presence of other religions and science as part of their deity's grand scheme.

@ Sweepya

This is not the only planet that sustains life, has sustained life or will sustain life. It is incorrect to say God uses the logic, "something can't come from nothing." Humans use logic. What God uses is beyond comprehension. Humans don't know the "mechanism" that causes information to be shared by objects that are entangled through quantum non-locality. The shared information is something from "nothing" . Humans can't explain science at its fullest potential, yet some attempt to explain God.

@Godscience

"This is not the only planet that sustains life, has sustained life or will sustain life. It is incorrect to say God uses the logic, "something can't come from nothing." Humans use logic. What God uses is beyond comprehension."

If we were created in his image, then it is your gods logic we possess. Unless of course intelligence, logic, and rationality are the devils toys. To think, is to challenge god's existence and become eternally damned, according to the bible. So, let's assume that you aren't religious and you just have a "feeling" that a supernatural being created everything because there are things we do not know yet and some that we may never know. Just because we do not know x, does not mean that we should fill it in with mysterious power.

--

"Humans don't know the "mechanism" that causes information to be shared by objects that are entangled through quantum non-locality. The shared information is something from "nothing" ."

Science requires funding and when you zealots are busy building factories, I mean churches of extreme size, and fighting wars over religion, it makes funding for science difficult. Like I said just because you don't know X, does not mean you fill it in with the god of the gaps. However, a hypothetical Higgs boson is the ideal communication particle responsible for some of the actions between particles that the gluon or W and Z bosons can't fulfill. Theories exist that do not anticipate the Higgs boson, described elsewhere as Higgsless models. Some arguments suggest that any mechanism which generates the masses of the elementary particles must be visible below 1.4 TeV. Therefore the Large Hadron Collider is expected to provide experimental evidence of the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson. However, the Large Hadron Collider is under maintenance. But before it broke down, it provided promising hints of the Higgs Boson particle. Still, just because we don't yet have the functioning equipment to detect such small things, does not mean they don't exist. Your mentality is ancient. It is what age old scientific philosophers once thought. Before the atom, there was no such idea, after the atom, came quarks, after quarks came gluons. It's a simple process my friend. Your impatience should not equate conclusion though.

--

"Humans can't explain science at its fullest potential, yet some attempt to explain God."

Something born without evidence, can easily be dismissed without evidence.

@Godscience

Are you claiming you know something we don't? If this god particle is beyond comprehension then how do you pray to it, discuss it on popular science threads, or even have a general idea at all that not only it exists, but that it must exist? How do know this god to be real when according to your definition he is unreality?

By my estimation contrary to what others might suggest (because of their own bias) you are not "very right" at all, and nor are you wrong. There really isn't a way to argue against or disprove such an inane postulation as "god defies anything you can say because it is beyond logic and reality" is there? However none of us here needs to prove you wrong. Your speculations are baseless and irrelevant. Trying to categorically affirm or deny a "somethingness" that supposedly exists beyond the realm of human comprehension is the very definition of monotony - which is a position theists are all too happy to occupy if it means protecting their delusional ideology. Still , this position will conveniently shift whenever palatable evidence is offered in defense of the god particle. Suppose I said I could type at my computer while simultaneously manifesting wherever you are in order to observe your behavior. The only reason you couldn't see me is because you are using sensory perception to locate my physical body and I exist in an otherworldly dimension when astral traveling. Do you know how insane that sounds? However how would you disprove it? I could be watching you right now by sending my consciousness out into the aether. You could argue I am not god, but what if I am? The obvious answer is "we are hitting intellectual bedrock with the shovel of stupidity." - Sam Harris. These questions are ultimately asinine.

Question: What is god? If you can answer that, it does not defy human comprehension, and if you can't answer it then you have no idea what you are talking about and no one here needs to listen to anything else you might have to say on the subject. According to your definition, though the god particle defies comprehension, it still "is", and if something "is" then there must follow a way to conceive how it might "be," as something either "is" or "isn't" within a philosophical context in order for it to have meaning. If it "is" in another dimension we can conceive of a way in which this being/particle/bacteria could be discovered , studied and/or dissected to further our understanding of the origins of the universe and advance human knowledge. The only way it could *conceivably* be out of human reach would be if it didn't exist at all, in which case there is no further need to discuss this matter. I do not rule out the possibility of of the existence of Hyperspace or the 5th dimension, as these are theoretical concepts I am currently reading about in a book by Michio Kaku, a brilliant physicist who has spent his life cultivating String Theory. However, I do not call the possibility of a 5th dimension which is only *currently* beyond the perception of Humankind (due to our limited technology) god (as you do), when there is no scientifically established reason to do so.

Imagine you are a fish, living in a pond. The water keeping you suspended would be invisible as you glided through seaweed or some other manner of flora in search of food, and you would have no knowledge of life beyond your aquatic environment. The idea that living things existed beyond the water, and walked upon the surface of a much larger world because of a force called gravity wouldn't enter your wildest dreams. It is safe to say you wouldn't even conceive of such a place without having first witnessed it. Imagine that a fish "scientist" was pulled out of the water one day by a giant human hand and plunged back below the surface. You would be bewildered like most fish and frantically try to find an explanation. Some might just say a "god" made the scientist disappear and then reappear, but upon further investigation you would know better.

I'm sure I'm not getting through to you, however, consider this: If god is "beyond comprehension" then it must exist in a reality independent and completely irrelevant to human concern, ergo there is no reason to worship, praise or discuss said god.

The three inalienable truths:

The Universe is infinite.
Existence is essential.
The only purpose in life is survival.

@Cynical Thought. BINGO!

@Sweepya

To be created in his image does not mean we are exact replicas. You must be one who takes the Bible literally. There are such things as analogies. We possess a consciousness that allows us to manifest thoughts into reality. That same consciousness allows you to use logic and allows you to feel emotion.

--

Zealot, no. Wars are fought over racism, terrorism, and to improve a standard of living as well. Don't blame war. God is not there to fill in the blank, the blank is there because of God.

"Theories exist that do not anticipate the Higgs boson, described elsewhere as Higgsless models. Some arguments suggest that any mechanism which generates the masses of the elementary particles must be visible below 1.4 TeV. Therefore the Large Hadron Collider is expected to provide experimental evidence of the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson."

This paragraph is there because of a copy and paste of the 3rd paragraph in Wikipedia regarding the Higgs Boson.

I never said the Higgs Boson doesn't exist. I said the shared information is something from "nothing." Finger quotes, because Higgs Boson is soon but yet to be proven. Once the God particle is proven, then one more step closer to proving God. I said Science and God co-exist.

My mentality isn't ancient, your reading is flawed.

--

"Something born without evidence, can easily be dismissed without evidence."

Christopher Hitchens is right. You can assert there is no God without evidence, and that can be easily dismissed without evidence.

@Sweepya
"BINGO" plagiarizer. lol

Life started with the universe. the Earth is part of the universe. I don't understand why people care about this. Earth is for people. the Heavens are for God.

"Do not scorn a weak cub; he may become a brutal tiger."

@Cynical Thought

The God particle is not beyond comprehension. God's "method" or "rational" is. I never postulated "god defies anything you can say because it is beyond logic and reality." Once again, Science and God co-exist. Your whole second paragraph is debating something i didn't say.

--

"Question: What is god? If you can answer that, it does not defy human comprehension, and if you can't answer it then you have no idea what you are talking about and no one here needs to listen to anything else you might have to say on the subject."

God is what God means to You. I hope that you are happy with your life and your consciousness.

The Universe is infinite. Opinion
Existence is essential. Opinion
The only purpose in life is survival. Opinion

My thoughts and yours. Opinions.

We can think what we want and debate. Fact.

".... If comets and asteroids really are churning out the ingredients for life, it certainly changes our picture of life in the universe, and the possibility that other rocks out there might be harboring their own biological systems...." Making life is one thing. The creation of a self ware human that comprehends the world around him with communication, curiosity, logic and artistic attributes is Devine. With earth being thought as old as 4.2 billion years old, surely if our life is just naturally produce, we should also have several natural competitors animal with us with the same or even better attributes. Why don’t we, because we humans are actually unique, create in an image greater than ourselves. And as our Dear Lord did his creative work on earth, he also could have been busy about making highly intelligent life in the universe too. To one day find another intelligent life existing in outer space, to me, shows our dear Lord is bigger than the entire universe traveling about. And to find more intelligent life in outer space also further confirms that GOD exist, by the reflections of what he has made. We humans could not see the electron, but we knew it was there by its effects. The same is true of our dear Lord.

@bubba

Nice.

"To be created in his image does not mean we are exact replicas. You must be one who takes the Bible literally. There are such things as analogies."

An all powerful entity that "gives" one guidebook to Christians, the bible, explains things in analogies. Okay. I fail to see analogy for 1st Samuel 15:3... Or hundreds of other seemingly literal verses...

You claim your god has higher thinking? Thinking that we do not possess? Hmm..

Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
— Exodus 34:14

Seems pretty human to me.

My argument now is in assumption that you are a christian god follower.

Let's talk about Jesus, if he is the son of your god and he existed and had many followers why is that no high priests, no kings, or scholars noted any existence in any writings... the only record of any Jesus is from the first gospel of Luke. And nobody has ever heard of this writer Luke.

Your god and your Jesus are mythical.
--

"We possess a consciousness that allows us to manifest thoughts into reality. That same consciousness allows you to use logic and allows you to feel emotion."

I'm sorry, what are you even saying? What is that even relevant to?

--

"Zealot, no. Wars are fought over racism, terrorism, and to improve a standard of living as well. Don't blame war. God is not there to fill in the blank, the blank is there because of God."

This has to be, easily, one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. I feel very sorry for you, your family, and anyone like you.

--

"This paragraph is there because of a copy and paste of the 3rd paragraph in Wikipedia regarding the Higgs Boson."

My exhaustion of effort involving religious idiocy has lead to an attrition of energy. I don't feel as though I need to summarize something perfectly understandable and then cite it just to tickle your fancy. It doesn't make it any less true or relevant. This is not a paper to my professor. It's an article's comment thread on the internet.

--

"I never said the Higgs Boson doesn't exist. I said the shared information is something from "nothing." Finger quotes, because Higgs Boson is soon but yet to be proven. Once the God particle is proven, then one more step closer to proving God. I said Science and God co-exist.
My mentality isn't ancient, your reading is flawed."

The god particle is the Higgs Boson.

"Humans don't know the "mechanism" that causes information to be shared by objects that are entangled through quantum non-locality."

What you're referring to is the Higgs Boson.

Science denies the need for a god, how can they co-exist? You can't take the products of science and claim they are gods and have no regard for the process to which they are obtained and why.

Scientific method the base of all science, disregards god. You can't say they co-exist and make any sense.

--

"Christopher Hitchens is right. You can assert there is no God without evidence, and that can be easily dismissed without evidence."

I'm unaware of who you speak of. But I'm glad someone's on board.

The problem with our world is that we can have such brilliant minds arguing for days over creationism and evolution when they would serve humanity much better if they would put their minds to things on a more local scale. It will always be important to people to find out if there is/are (a) higher being(s)but there arent enough people focused on things that will affect us in the short run. Go do something that will benefit your neighbors!!!

@ sweepya

Dont talk about my family fuck boy. Fuck you and your professor. No shit the Higgs Boson is the God particle. You need to take your head out of your little athiest ass.

@Godscience, it’s a fact of life, the louder you speak the less others hear you. It's your calm that has the best chance of persuading others, at the very least being heard. If at times you or I cannot put a fact in some bodies hand, our opinions have merit. If I shove my opinion down some body’s throat, yes they will spit it back at me. Do not let others push your buttons and become loud and stupid like them, ok.

@ bubba

I know. Just people need to have respect. We are all here to post our opinions. Noone needs to feel sorry for anyone. Its easy for lames to type up things they would never say in person. Bet if Sweepya and I threw down, he'd hope God would save em.

@sweepya

I wont shove anything down your throat. You like to spit anyways.

@ Godscience

"God is what God means to You. I hope that you are happy with your life and your consciousness."

Here you have asserted that gods are subjectively defined phantoms, given manifest only in the malleable interpretations of we simple humans.

Further reading:
"Humans use logic. What God uses is beyond comprehension. Humans don't know the "mechanism" that causes information to be shared by objects that are entangled through quantum non-locality. The shared information is something from "nothing" . Humans can't explain science at its fullest potential, yet some attempt to explain God."

Now you have doubled back and postulated that gods are esoteric things, possessed of nary a concern regarding the limited human capacity for logic and reason, as they are, in effect, beyond physical parameters. Alas, I am confounded in my pursuit of one of the new (now monotheistic) pantheon, because their disciple has told me that I simultaneously must, or may, define their collective meaning within my own thoughts, whilst all-the-while being incapable of understanding their agenda or means. So, I can define gods, but I cannot explain them? Am I to conclude that I must ruminate upon and conceive a Platonic pencil, yet have no comprehension of how its graphite decorates and mars the surface of this Kosmic paper?

"The God particle is not beyond comprehension. God's "method" or "rational" is. I never postulated "god defies anything you can say because it is beyond logic and reality." Once again, Science and God co-exist. Your whole second paragraph is debating something i didn't say."

Now further disheartened, I am becoming critical of the disciple's sermon. You have recanted, again, and said that you do not claim god defies logic and reality. I am getting mixed signals, and this is one romance whose prospects I must be infinitely confident in if I am to spray on the Axe and start the courtship process. I'm desperate, but we don't court our own hands before masturbation, friend.

"You can assert there is no God without evidence, and that can be easily dismissed without evidence."

I am now remiss, as the cycle comes full circle. Simply put: no. Negatives do not require evidence. Affirmatives do. If I say I rode a space moose into FSM territory and played ombudsman (meeting no interesting people along the way), I must subsequently show you my steed, the path I took, and the transcript of the conversation. You would be under no obligation to prove to me that I was a fool - I would've already removed all doubt. Similarly, if you exclaim, with absolution, that gods occupy the cluttered halls of the heavens, you must show me evidence. I am not burdened with that responsibility, nor is anyone else.

If your rationale is resistant to Cynical Thought's concluding maxim, here is another from Mulla Sadra (and more recently Jean-Paul Sartre), of the same vein: "Existence precedes essence." This is not an opinion, regardless of its existentialistic and philosophical origin. Contend as you or any might, we are all born blank slates. Your context, location, and upbringing determine which set of cogs will turn in your essential mind - apologetic stances do not reconcile the incontrovertible gap between physics and pataphysics, science and theology; they merely muddle the space that futilely attempts to occupy them both.

@Godscience

"Dont talk about my family fuck boy. Fuck you and your professor."

Hey, there's the christian in you!

--

"I know. Just people need to have respect. We are all here to post our opinions. Noone needs to feel sorry for anyone. Its easy for lames to type up things they would never say in person."

I don't know you and I don't respect you or your ideas, so why would I pretend?

--

"Bet if Sweepya and I threw down, he'd hope God would save em."

Internet tough guy. How mature of you.

Nah, biology would have my back.

--

"I wont shove anything down your throat. You like to spit anyways."

I wish your parents had had the same mentality.

@Godscience

"The God particle is not beyond comprehension. God's "method" or "rational" is."

You are still suggesting you know something that we don't, which is that god's "method" is beyond our comprehension. How do you know this? This appears to be a pretense to knowledge. If the "method" is unreal then it is of no consequence to humans and furthermore contradicts the supposed reality of the originator.

In order for the god particle to be comprehended it must operate within the confines of our perceived reality. Such a thing operating wtihin the confines of reality would not, and could not employ a method for seeding the universe that defies all logic, because it would negate the possibility of your premise (that god is comprehensible), therefore the argument I made in my previous comment is still relevant. Any and all manner of a *conceptual god* capable of interacting with the universe would be the result of human interpretation of known (either now or in the future) physical or quantum mechanical laws. In other words, you cannot posit that something real can do unreal things - this is counterintuitive.

Either this "god" is a particle we can comprehend and eventually discover and explain or it is a non-thing you have conjured in your own mind to exist outside of reality - in which case it is irrelevant, and not worth discussing.

If god does exist in perceived reality we can rationalize that such a particle after being studied/dissected and understood would simply be a means to further human understanding and power over natural laws, as this is consistent with the gradual progression of scientific investigation thus far. There is no need to refer to a conceivably natural phenomenon as "god" as it is a bit of a misnomer and belabors the issue of supernaturalism in otherwise sensible conversation.

"God is what God means to You."

God means nothing. Both to me, and by definition. It is essentially a label we place on unknown variables. The difference is that theists pretend to know things and atheists do not. You cannot say god exists outside reality, nor that it merely uses a "rationale" outside of reality because you are a human and all of your thoughts are bound to reality.

"My thoughts and yours. Opinions"

True, however my opinions are built upon the foundation of scientific methodology, meaning I believe in only what is statistically probable or consistent with observable fact. Your opinions are based on things like intuition and irrational faith, like saying there is an intelligent god when there is no evidence at all to support this.

The three inalienable truths:

The Universe is infinite.
Existence is essential.
The only purpose in life is survival.

7 Billion People in the world. God loves all of them individual. He made us all each as individuals too. It should not be surprising we are all having an individual experience. I am responsible for my own beliefs and actions and so are you. If we pause and listen of what Gods words are being whispered into the ear of our fellow man, we may just learn something new and in ourselves and grow closer to the same God that whispers in our own ear. Be calm, be tolerant and goodnight, tomorrow is a new day!

@cynical thought, I agree with your previous comment

@everyone preaching the word of this mysterious, unproven deity. Surely there must be some religious forums that are better suited to post on, on second thought i forgot how oppressive religion is.

Im no professor but i enjoy learning and talking about science, not religion. Im all for free will and free speech but the name of the site is called popularSCIENCE afterall and not popularReligion

@liquid, society and religion are a type of repression as we try to get along with others. The more we become independent in life, the freer we become. Still to be a hermit in the middle of a wilderness is absolute freedom, no rules from society, it’s also lonely place to be. We humans are social animals. It’s the nature of who we are. For those who declare there is no GOD, relieve themselves of any quilt of the rules that religion implies. Still at the end of your life to die with no GOD, does not mean GOD is gone for your own connivance; judgment still comes as our eyes close and the last breath leaves our body. The ultimate truth will be revealed. But thinking in terms of science and natural selection and 2.4 years of time of growth on planet earth the variety of animals, you think we have a another animal that was our competitor. There are variety of birds, variety of cats, and variety of dogs and so on. There is only one human that comprehends the world around him with communication, curiosity, logic and artistic attributes. Scientifically speaking why don't we have another animals similar and or smarter than us? Scientifically speaking with the variety and simuliarity of animals on earth there there should be a ape or monkey village somewhere with its own society, but it does not exist. We humans are unique and we are special and we were created.

".....terms of science and natural selection and 2.4 BILLION years of time of growth..."

"There is only one human that comprehends the world around him with communication, curiosity, logic and artistic attributes."

This human goes by the name "Sweepya".

I love to break it to ya Bubba but other animals are curious, use logic and communicate. Artistic abbilities are also arguable. The only thing that differentiates human beings from other animals, most specifically, is that we have the ability to imagine things. Foresight, unassociated fear, art?, people in the sky.....

Imagination, bubba.

@sweepya, I hate to break it to you too, they have not found the missing link of humans and they never will. We humans did a leap 3x of brain size and spontaneously created culture from nothing. Scientist do a blind eye to this and it continues to be a mystery to them, with a shoulder shrug. We religious folk have do the answer for your scientist unanswered questions.

@Bubbagump

"I hate to break it to you too, they have not found the missing link of humans and they never will. We humans did a leap 3x of brain size and spontaneously created culture from nothing. Scientist do a blind eye to this and it continues to be a mystery to them, with a shoulder shrug. We religious folk have do the answer for your scientist unanswered questions."

Culture is the same thing as tradition and tradition is nothing distant from imagination. A continuing cycle of things. Like your religion and it's followers, generation after generation maintaining it's existence and none of them questioning it.

The human mind is possibly at maximum processing and size capacity without violating the laws of thermodynamics. I IMAGINE this increase in size was the possible result of mutation and... hopefully you know how evolution works.
The reason a cows brain is larger but doesn't increase it's intelligence is because the cerebral cortex is pre-occupied with the sensory and autonomic functions of the animals massive body. The larger the brain in relevence to the animals size determines the speed at which signals are transferred from neural beginning to axon end. All that white and grey stuff dominating the center of your brain.. that all is called white and grey matter. White and grey matter are axons and dendrites. Signal carriers. Greater the distance from the shell(cortex) to the(axon travel path) destination, the lengthier the time it takes. Now add multiples processes, all moving slowly, and you get a 1998 IBM.

Our cortex, relative to our size, allows us room to think faster, imagine, and sort information at a higher capacity.

Yay, for humans! Nay, for credit whoring invisibles!

Like a good friend of mine often quotes "God is political".

Binary logic is still logic, but is quite limited. It is quite possible that our logic is limited in a similar fashion.

Science does not require religion to exist, but also does not require religion to not exist. Thus, being unrelated, they CAN coexist.

To say anything is impossible based on the lack of evidence is unscientific… And has often hindered scientific development in the past.

Lastly, perhaps you will want to research the general religious perspectives before engaging in intelligent debate… Your arguments only defy the stereotypes of the religious, not the common reality. For instance, a minority of Christians are actually literalists and creationists.

@Matth5327 BINGO ruminate!

@Matt5327
"Binary logic is still logic, but is quite limited. It is quite possible that our logic is limited in a similar fashion."

I appreciate your candor but how were you able to deduce that our logic is limited based on this observation alone? You are human and ergo are confined to the same parameters of thought we are. There is what is real and what is not. Human beings are only "limited" in the sense that what is "inconceivable" cannot concern us by the very definition of the word. It is unimaginable, therefore, - you cannot imagine it. Any concept that enters your mind is a product of your own sensory organs interacting with reality in a way interpreted by your brain through a process of electromagnetic and chemical activity. The fact that you seem to think there can exist a god who is outside of reality is simply an example of flawed logic, it doesn't mean that our logic itself is flawed. In order for the idea of god to even be entertained it must be -comprehensible- and this allows for the possibility that this entity/particle/bacteria could be discovered within a dimension as yet undiscovered by Human beings in reality. Therein lies the crux of my assertion. This would also mean that it is most likely a natural phenomenon, and that the only reason we would call it "supernatural" is due to our limited technology or understanding.

Imagine a unicorn. They are not real, however they exist due to human imagination which is and will always be subject to our perception of reality. The question of unicorns is a theoretical concept we can investigate and therefore dismiss or accept. Imagine Hyperspace and the 5th dimension. These concepts might go a long way in explaining various quantum theoretical questions and yet they defy many of our everyday physical laws. They are not "supernatural" in the sense that they are outside of reality (because then we wouldn't be discussing them) we simply do not possess the ability to understand them yet. However it is our ability to imagine understanding such a concept that paves the way for scientific inquiry.

"Science does not require religion to exist, but also does not require religion to not exist. Thus, being unrelated, they CAN coexist"

Science is an established knowledgebase, built upon a foundation of empirical data used by human beings to understand reality as we know it. It is constantly evolving and ever changing. We use the knowledge gleaned from experimentation to rule out ideas which are inconsistent with our observations or incoherent within the framework of human logic (or reality). Religion is an organization which capitalizes off of people's fear and superstition, and promotes unhealthy supernatural predilictions, like the irrational faith in an all powerful intelligent superbeing (an idea which is comprehensible however is both contradictory and inconsistent with our observations thus far). Because it is statistically unlikely to exist, we needn't act as though it is real, let alone worship, or fear it. No natural occurence (which the god particle must be) has ever existed that is omnipotent or omniscient.

No, science is not incompatible with religion, it is incompatible with irrational faith, and without irrational faith, religion is superfluous. If the god particle is a natural phenomenon we can investigate it, we don't need religion, and we would in fact be better off without it. You may be a religious "moderate" but there are far too many right-wing religious nutjobs who wish the world to conform to their own flawed ideologies for my liking. Your willingness to support the Christian Bible and its many contradictions and archaic, bigoted, and backward passages may seem like it doesn't cause anyone harm because you are not a "literalist" but the fact that you support it means that real "literalists" can too, because who will draw the line on the "correct" interpretation of a metaphor in the Bible? The best solution is to simply throw it all out.

"To say anything is impossible based on the lack of evidence is unscientific… And has often hindered scientific development in the past."

Provide some examples. Unreality is impossible, concepts that exist in your mind and are therefore comprehensible are either probable or improbable. A scientists has rational faith in what is statistically likely to be true, based on empirical observation.

"Your arguments only defy the stereotypes of the religious, not the common reality. For instance, a minority of Christians are actually literalists and creationists."

The majority are enablers. You lend credence to literalists and creationists due to your willingness to entertain irrational beliefs. Not one irrational belief need be tolerated. You give them the inch, they will want the mile. In other words where do you draw the line on what is "too irrational" before people are flying planes into buildings? On the other hand it is not possible to be "too rational." Its like saying a pane of glass in a window can be "too transparent" to see through. It is entirely possible to lead a fulfilling, purposeful life while looking at an unknown variable x and calling it what it is instead of slapping a label like "god" on it before you have properly investigated it.

The three inalienable truths:

The Universe is infinite.
Existence is essential.
The only purpose in life is survival.

@Cynical Thought, Hearsay becomes fact when you have enough hearsayers. 85% of the people believe in GOD. 95% of USA citizens do too. You will even ignore the thousand of years to future support GOD. Hearsay of a large enough quantity will convict a person. Scientifically you just choosing to ignore all the people with a inner sense of GOD just for you own argument and convience. I understand, I got you figured out.

Sweepya is very devout. He/she has excitement over his deity and the works of his deity and I will not try to change his mind, for I know his excitement well. Fear not other proselytizers his deity is small and weak and limited, because he describes it so well and precise. Mine is creator of his and we love him as we love ourselves, but self does not rule me, it is my creator that does. Peace be upon you neighbors.

DJ_D, thank you for the new word to myself,lol," proselytizers".

pros·e·ly·tize (prs-l-tz)
v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es
v.intr.
1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.
v.tr.
To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

Good night.

@matt5327

"Science does not require religion to exist, but also does not require religion to not exist. Thus, being unrelated, they CAN coexist."

I'd say Cynical Thought just about covered everything I want to say to you. So, there isn't a whole lot to cover other than just wanting to make it clear that you obviously don't understand scientific methodologies. Religion has no more merit than myth and folklore. Your religion was born in a time long before science was even understood. A time when static electricity was considered divine intervention... Religion was born to exist alone and dismiss curiosity. Science attempts to explain the things that religion supposes. You can't interlace them. One is in opposition to progression and universal understanding and the other is for that progression. Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world. Religion was simply a way for theocracies to collect taxes and keep the people silent as well as an attempt to keep unrelated people from starting wars with each other... Obviously that didn't work out. However, the common person continued to maintain this ridiculous ploy and misdiagnose truths.

In religion, people assume the supernatural is at work...
In science, people know the natural is occurring..

In religion, people pray as a form of healing an injury or disease..
In science, people attempt to physically heal a person through known forms of medicine..

In religion, people assume the universe is a work of a god..
In science, people attempt to explain it..

They cannot respect each other so they cannot coexist.

--

"To say anything is impossible based on the lack of evidence is unscientific… And has often hindered scientific development in the past."

Not when they are not even in the paradigm science.

--

"Lastly, perhaps you will want to research the general religious perspectives before engaging in intelligent debate… Your arguments only defy the stereotypes of the religious, not the common reality. For instance, a minority of Christians are actually literalists and creationists."

The minority follows the construct of religious scripture in its entirety and the majority manipulates it to fit their lifestyle so they can live however they want and still get everything they've ever wanted in the end. They still follow the same fallacies. People need recognition. Not purpose.

@BubbaGump

Just stop.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.
If 85% of the population believes the world is flat, does that make the world flat?

@DJ_D

Please, do not speak directly to me or about me.

You assume religion began before curiosity. You say this, where you there? Humans are curious in nature. You are not there at the beginning of the human spirit or conscious.

We live in a biology world. This biological world existed from the beginning.

The only true merit of thought is humanity. We are not debating the thoughts of single cell virus or bacteria; we are concerned with humanity, ourselves.

You can be as scientific as you please and describe me to the smallest of particles.

Religion is of you inner spirit. If you deny you inner spirit, I have no control of you. You are responsible for your own beliefs and the owner. We are all created individuals and the own owners of our inner spirits. We, I take responsibility of our beliefs and actions. We each will know judgment at the end of our life.

You do know this is of some rock found in some cold place and has a few pieces of fragmented DNA?
I feel you argue for the sake of just arguing and you will just continue.
Then I say fine. Be the owner of beliefs.

You will be the recipent of your beliefs.

@Sweepya, Sir, I worry about you and care about you. I wish you well and may our dear Lord forgive you and bless you and you begin a new life. I hope you search in your own heart to seak our dear Lord and search for for forgiveness of your own sins. To be humble, to praise our dear Lord, to ask for forgiveness and to love is a good life. Love is simply to care for others as you care for yourself. We have thousand of religions in the world and history. We have thousand of languages and cultures too. I do not mean to confuse you by anything. I hope you seek the Lord and find him. He loved you first. Take Care.

@Sweepya

Sweepya knows so little about religion yet practices it very well. He dislikes the Christian god for reasons of his own, yet he doesn't take the time to learn of the Christian god well enough to state even logical counter arguments. He says things like:

Sweepya--- "An all powerful entity that "gives" one guidebook to Christians, the bible, explains things in analogies. Okay. I fail to see analogy for 1st Samuel 15:3... Or hundreds of other seemingly literal verses...
You claim your god has higher thinking? Thinking that we do not possess? Hmm..
Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
— Exodus 34:14
Seems pretty human to me.
My argument now is in assumption that you are a christian god follower.
Let's talk about Jesus, if he is the son of your god and he existed and had many followers why is that no high priests, no kings, or scholars noted any existence in any writings... the only record of any Jesus is from the first gospel of Luke. And nobody has ever heard of this writer Luke.
Your god and your Jesus are mythical."

First he references two books of a compendium of books and letters written by men about a god who would latter become the Christian God. So here he is confused on the issue of "The Bible". In order to dispel a myth that people like him spread I tell you this:

1. "The Bible" is more often to referred to as "The Holy Bible" by its followers and is an incomplete collection of writings about the nature of humanity, social living, and unexplained warnings. The characters in The Holy Bible that reference God have no more understanding of God's nature than the writer of that particular book. We have many writers today Sweepya being one of them that show us what their understanding is, and we can choose to agree or not. If the Pope decides to include Sweepya's writings in The Holy Bible it would not contradict any other writings. Jewish and Christian writers of today my find their works meditated on by distant future worshipers. This is a fact that many of todays followers do not understand yet. To them it is like finding out their parents are fallible people too.

2. "The Holy Bible has writing styles written by many people in each book. Sometimes they are parables, most often they are analogies, and sometimes they are literal. The Holy Bible's reference to Cesar and other figures of history are little disputed because they appear in non biblical context writings. So we know that some things may be literal. Dreams and visions are described so we know that some things my not be literal. But anyone who acts on the writings of any religious document does so as an individual. Any religious teacher that fails to express the importance of meditation (Christians call it prayer), so truth has arrived in the mind of the individual, has not taught but has instead usurped the religion for his own glory. This holds true for science as well. Coming to an understanding of truth is more difficult here since you would have to meditate on the methods that bring you to take the next step. It is easy to usurp the power of science. Those that do this, become religiously bound to science. Creating a believe what I say and don't think for yourself conundrum that they so fervantly reject. Here in this article that we are commenting under DNA was found, but the message is meaningless to all but a very small handful of humans. I for one have no understating of DNA, or travel to other worlds in any meaningful way that I could repeat this article.

3. If like Sweepya suggests no scholar wrote about Jesus then how would I or he know of him? He names a scholar as he disputes it. If I took all the writings of Einstein and about Einstein put it in one book called it The Einstein Bible so that his works and personality would be easily referenced, would he cease to be a real person in 400 years because no one alive knew him personally and no one other than the people in my book ever wrote of him? I don't think so.

In conclusion religion is so much easier to defend than science, and religion has no facts to back it up. Which is why it's a religion. I ask you all to seek individual truth. Please, keep in mind that the sky is blue because we agree that it is blue not because it is factually or provably blue.

The sky is actually blue because the suns light travels through the atmosphere and the shorter light waves(blue) are the waves most affected making them more visable from the white sun light.

"They cannot respect each other so they cannot coexist."

Your logic shown before this quote dictates only how they are different. If I were to tell you that quantum physics and supermassive black holes can't coexist because they don't respect each other, I would still sound less foolish than you.

@Cynical Thought

Here are a few excellent examples of science being hindered by discrediting things for so-called "lack of evidence."

First: For a long time, scientists believed the existence of a vacuum in space impossible. This is because of the simple fact of energy requiring a medium to travel in, and light obviously traveled through space. They called this the ether.

Today, we can see how seriously flawed the logic of the time was. But to them, all facts were present, and though they could not prove their denial, they formed it anyway.

Second, a more recent example: We look at the laws thermodynamics as laws of nature that we can never supersede. While the laws do not directly state that 100% efficiency is impossible, we find it rather obvious that it is so, because it is simply impossible to collect all thermal energy that is wasted.

And then we come across an alloy that converts 100% of thermal energy into electrical energy.

The lesson: In science, one should neither believe NOR discredit something when there is an absence of evidence towards either regard.

In the words of Colbert, I believe the words you are looking for are check, and mate.

@Liquid You can detect an electromagnetic frequency that falls into the spectrum that we "agree" is blue. You can not prove it is blue, its blueness is determined from empirical evidence which simply means we agree that it is true. I was actually expecting a detractor to explain how it was clear and only appears blue but I commend you for thinking outside the box.

".......From Meteorites, the Building Blocks of Life...."

Im going to make one comment to the evolution debate...just one because this is too diverse to rage about here.

Fact 1: There are MILLIONS of codons in a human cell, if these were not arranged to perfection a cell of any kind could not exist...

Fact 2: Without very specialized operations(read: use of ligase, polymerase, and the Okazaki fragments, not to mention the entire process of cell division) cells could not reproduce...

Fact 3: A bit of simple mathematics: Lets say the number of codons is 30, 000, 000 ( 30 million ). If you put those in a random order attempting to get the correct codon chain(DNA) there is a 30,000,000 x 30,000,000 (read: 90,000,000,000,000) to one chance you will get it right... and that is only the chance that you will get the DNA sequence correct, there are countless other factors to consider, but I do not feel it is necessary to get into these with the information presented. I rest my case.

The bottom line is...it's still not life itself or evidence for life. Try again.

@Factsviaobservation, add to your calculations they say the human DNA is also composed of 95% junk DNA. By calculations it’s a wonder we exist each time we human’s propagate and yet we do with great frequency. Unless that 95% actually has a purpose and could be as some suggest it's a hidden message of origins, buried in our DNA, waiting for us to be smart enough to read the history book.

So many failures in logic, it's simply atrocious. I leave for a few days to come back to this? Creationists attempting to patronize science, people employing simple bandwagon fallacies, etc etc. People insinuating that SCIENCE is a religion. That is absurd.

Science is not religion. Religion is based on the assumption that an unobservable god exists. Science is based on empirical evidence.

Empirical:(adj) Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

I hope that clears some misconceptions up.

I know, right! Every time I see the name Fallacy, I think of how appropriate it is!

In other news, Fallacy has spent his last post talking sense of some sort.

@BubbaGump I have always found that interesting, though I do find that less likely. There's really no evidence against it, but I find it more likely that they just contain a bunch of very recessive traits from our ancestry.

Of course, then there is the theory of Ancestry memory, not quite in the Assassin's Creed style of clarity, but rather generations after generations of people facing the same situation develop certain tendencies in our DNA, which has a bit of credence as a theory, but not to an incredible amount.

And then there's the doctor who version in which the remaining 95% contains data of a giant monster intent on eating everything. :D

@Matt5327: You're more then welcome to dissect my posts and point out any fallacies I may have made. In the mean time it appears that you're implying that I wasn't talking sense in my previous post. Care to elaborate?

@ LittleJudy08/09/11 at 5:05 pm
""If life was out there don't you think it would have found us by now?"

Perhaps it's because the universe is some 13-14 billion years old and therefore we humans have only been around for a split second in universe time. Maybe we simply weren't around when the phone rang, so to speak."

That or they took one look at us and said 'No Way!'

@ MigPosada and trtp2

I think you are both right. Evolution has been proven (Did you forget about man's best friend?) Dogs have evolved from their original beginnings as wolves, yes with human help but they are the most common example of evolution processes. There is NO chance to breed a Chiuaua back to a wolf, it has evolved too far. But that doesn't mean that the whole process didn't have help in the beginning. DNA from a space rock does not prove life started as random chance or intelligent design, it just proves that that bit of DNA came from space.

Anyway, if you are a beliver and follow the tenants of your faith you will live life as a good person or if you are not but still live life well there are two possible endings as you two see it

1) MigPosada beilef: no God - live life well and kindly and you die knowing you were a good person

2) trtp2 belief: God - live life well and kindly and you die knowing you were a good person

If you are a number 1 person and number 1 is the world: no harm done. If you are a number 2 person and that is the world: no harm done. If you are a 1 and 2 happens - well you'll believe real fast once you are confronted with the truth. If you live as a 2 and 1 is the world you'll never know but still die being a good person.

Basically it does and does not matter if we are the product of random chance or a superior beings experiment. We are still here and still charged with a great responsibility in living life well. And no matter what you feel we all are on the road to the adventure of greatest proportions: LIFE.

@Bubbagump Lets try it that way than shall we?

5% of 30 mil.= 1.5 mil

So 1,500,000 times 1,500,000 = 2,250,000,000,000

At 5% of human DNA being the important parts the chances of it happening randomly(via evolution) are:

1 in 2,250,000,000,000

Doesn't really improve the chances does it?

Improbable does not equal impossible. Impossible is something that can not happen, NOT something that is unlikely to happen.

@Fallacy, I see you wine allot, but you’re so general and unspecific, how can any person make good use of your comments. If a person would use your exact words at you, could you decipher the specifics of the complaint? Your complaints serve no benefit and except you like the sound of your own typing.

@Bubba: I prefer red over white.

lol

@Drchuck1 it’s tough for me to dignify your puny attempts at insults with a proper response. Just letting you know that Bubba is making more sense than you these days. LOL

@ Sweepmyfloor .do you always go around POPSCI and just reinforce cynical thought’s comments? “Right on” “that’s how I feel”….LMAO…, once in a while fine, but this is the second article you are piggy backing him…you’re such a fanboy!

@Fallacy, the meteorite was found on earth, the ONLY assumption that can be made is that DNA found on it was from contamination from earth. There are many factors that can explain why it’s retaining DNA when the strata around it has not, ie it was transported there, the meteorite composition allows it to retain DNA etc, etc.

The DNA was not found in space…this has nothing to do with creationism and everything to do with bad science, eviloution agenda & popsci being sensationalists.

Yes there is probably life out there, the galaxy (never mind the universe) is so big that there must be other life out there. But to assume it fell from the sky in the form of rocks is ludicrous.

The evolutionists are revealing themselves to be insecure, willing to cling to any theory as long as it points them away from the Almighty. There is no proof of evolution, NONE to this day.

On a different note, I saw Rise of the Planets of the Apes this weekend. Forget about the machines, genetic manipulation will be the downfall of society.

@ALH: Again, I agree with you that popsci is certainly sensationalist, but the use of DNA is not proper, and it is clarified in the article(as well as the link to the NASA site). So why exactly is the ONLY assumption we can make is that the organic compounds came from Earth? I'm not attempting to say definitively that the compounds came from space, I'm just questioning how you arrived at the conclusion that the compounds could have only come from Earth.

For a really simple alien invasion of earth, it may only take one tiny little virus. Come back in a year and then invade. Let’s hope our outer space aliens continue enjoying seeing us humans as we humans enjoy seeing the animals at the zoo or animal reserve, then all is well. When we humans grow smart enough or the aliens needs something from us or our planet, they’ll show t themselves soon enough. We are not the inventors of cloaking, ya know.

Of course when the 12th (Nibiru) planet swings around in its 3657 year orbital cycle and is in close proximety to earth, they may be some Nibirians come a knocking on our doors Dec 2012.

In the mean time, I'll drink my Sun Drop.

Personally I hold a lot of hope for the Alpha Centauri system. It's close, has tons of planets, and has for two or three times caused excitement. We see so much potential for life elsewhere in our own system, so why not there?

@Matt5327, you do make a location perspective seeming of Centauri system suggestion it being is proximity. Though it would be incorrect to ignore what the Samarians, Egyptians, American Indians, Native African Tribes, and Mayans and yes others cultures too, suggest about the star systems about or at the Orion system too. You being logically correct why did so many different cultures point to Orion; it almost gives the impression all these various cultures met an alien in the past and was taught this Orion system was important. Now how did that come about? Was it evolution that made them all pay attention to Orion? Did this variety of people across the world, different cultures come to the same conclusion because it was in their DNA to look to Orion. They just didn’t email each other or pick up their cell phone and share ideas easily. It’s a interesting question.

@Matt5327, (My second attempt at better gramar, lol)your choice of choosing the Alpha Centauri system because of its proximity seems logical. Though it would be incorrect to ignore what the Samarians, Egyptians, American Indians, Native African Tribes, and Mayans and yes others cultures too. These cultures focused on the Orion system too. You being logically correct why did so many different cultures point to Orion? Alpha Centauri is closer. It almost gives the impression all these various cultures met an outsider who traveled about the earth, an alien who in the past taught this Orion system to be important. Now how did that come about? Or did these cultures focus on it for other reasons. Was it evolution that made them all pay attention to Orion? Did this variety of people across the world, different cultures come to the same conclusion because it was in their DNA to look to Orion? It’s an interesting question.

@Fallacy Re: 08/15/11 at 10:52 am, I believe I was the first here to call Science a religion while leaving science to those that are interested in gaining knowledge. (Capitalized to show respect for the devout.) I'm really just drawing a parallel between people who believe one way without evidence and people who believe another way with evidence that they often choose to ignore. What I see in case after case is this definition of religion from Wikipedia:

@Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.[1]

1. ^ While religion is difficult to define, one standard model of religion, used in religious studies courses, was proposed by Clifford Geertz, who simply called it a "cultural system" (Clifford Geertz, Religion as a Cultural System, 1973). A critique of Geertz's model by Talal Asad categorized religion as "an anthropological category." (Talal Asad, The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category, 1982.)

So there you have it from the scientists that a culture of Science worship is possible and I say they post on this forum regularly, with all the excitement one can expect of a evangelical. Proselytizing studies and theories as if they were empirical fact and it is not above persons like me to test even the most empirical of facts.

Well it's only natural that early civilization would look to the stars with wonder, and Orion is quite bright and noticeable, even to one who does not not know of the constellation.

Regardless, Alpha Centauri a is a prime candidate to begin interstellar exploration… And right now our projected maximum speeds are roughly 10% the speed of light, though with slow acceleration. Given the rate of development, however, I'd be very surprised if a satellite weren't launched in our lifetimes with Alpha Centauri a as a target.

@Matt5327, we hear much about the limitation of the speed of light and mass, but in math now days they speak much about string theory and worm holes and different dimensions. Mathematically, I do not have a clue. But still this seems to be much public conversation of the possibilities of math. Perhaps in the future they will find an alternate of travel using gravity drive, worm holes or traveling in different dimensions. One theory too is aliens can be visiting our planet and use different phase of dimensions to cloak themselves and hide in plane sight or the take the light behind them and push it to the front of them.

@DJ_D, what do you do if say 3000 years ago or more you are a highly religious person, you see and hear something and have no language to speak of and no technology in your spoken vocabulary. If something mechanical flew from the sky and came to you and then a person came out and spoke more. How would you record this for others? Also these others respect the words you record too. I am religious, but I wonder what a religious ancient person would do in such a circumstance. Could a history moment be recorded religiously? Could scientist currently discount what they read, because it was written in a religious book and not acknowledge an important past event that happen in our reality. Could thousands of typical normal people today have a extraordinary strange experience and scientist just ignore it, because of the limitations within themselves to explain it. Thousands of people see globes of light in the sky and the government just continues to ignore it.

I never saw an electron, but I know it's there by all the things it accomplishes each day.

@Aldrons last but not least idiotic comment

I see you're still a moron with the logic of a 10 year old. I haven't seen one good rebuttal from anyone here and then you come in, making them look even worse.

"Do you always go around POPSCI and just reinforce cynical thought’s comments? “Right on” “that’s how I feel”….LMAO…, once in a while fine, but this is the second article you are piggy backing him…you’re such a fanboy!"

Considering the fact that I commented many times before his first comment in each thread, I don't follow you. But then again I never do.

So are you still running around the threads making false claims like "evolution has no evidence" and "my car and house are nicer than yours so god must be real"?

@sweepya, I wish you well. What if god exist; evolution exist, space aliens exist and just a little confusion of history going on, but its all true, it all exist. Wouldn't just fix all. ;)

That would be convenient.

Mathematically, wormholes last for an instant unless we can find a particle with negative or imaginary mass, though warp drives hold a lot of promise. We just need to find a way of manipulating space-time, which is actuallly just a matter of engineering if we could just invent a portal (I have a hypothesis called "stitching," but unfortunately am unable to test it thanks to lack of equipment).

@Matt5327, I am of the same delima too, to test many theories\hypothesis but sigh I can not, due to lack of equipment, lol.

@BubbaGump I don't think the general people of 3000 years ago were particularly pious. You pick an interesting era in human kind where information was controled by political force and priests.

Absolutely an ancient person who experienced an airplane of today might describe it as a flying bird made of shiny stone but softer so that it could be a worked material. That person might explain how it was a manufactured machine with many intricate parts that propelled it into the sky. In the end his initial explaination gets boiled down to Flying Carpet. Every element of his description is right there. Carpets have many intricate parts and are made tougher than cloth you would wear, and may have been the most common technology advanced enough to compare it to.

The religious people were the first scientists. They knew that such tellings and retellings would boil away the meaning of what they saw. They developed more permanent ways to record what they observed and perhaps some of the recordings had been diluted too much already. It is the religious that point back at discoveries of the past as fact. The scientific would have to make sure the observation of the past was true today.

I can say I believe in God. I don't need the proof that he exists. It is my pure faith that he works in my life. I am an electrician by trade. I work with the unseen magical force that I attempt to control on a daily basis. Many think they know how it works because they can call lightening into existence on command with other unseen forces. Magnets, chemicals, movement... those things are equally understood, that is to say very little. How do I say to ancient people how it works? It would be easy for me to say move the load stone past the copper bar to conjure the lightning god. Is is not the same thing? There is no observable way to explain these things to people. So today, we explain many intricate parts and many many more things we can not observe naturally, often using what we are trying to explain as proof of it's observation.

You can not observe an electrical theory without using electricity. That is to say observing the electron push or pull other electrons without the use of a huge electrical instrument. That is like trying to define a word by using the word in a definition. The nature of this kind of science is religious. You have to have faith that observation using the instrument that you want to observe is pure. Try looking at a magnifying glass through a magnifying glass... Does it tell you how the magnifying glass works? Why would you use a magnifying glass to determine how other things work? Faith. Faith that someone observed how it worked in the past and that in continues to work today so I do not need to retest the instruments or the sources from which the observations came.

Faith and science go hand in hand. I think it was designed that way. The purists, the quakers of the science, have turned so far away from things they can not explain, that they say it doesn't exist. Even when Gods work is as observable as a magnetic field, or dare I say, are the same thing.

@DJ_D: There are a few things which separate science and religion, thing which science lacks. Such as ritual observances, superstitions, belief in the supernatural and belief in an afterlife. For reference, the definition of ritual in both noun and adjectival form regards religion. (so we're on the same page per the definition)

(N.):A religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order: "the ancient rituals of Christian worship".
(Adj.): Of, relating to, or done as a religious or solemn rite: "ritual burial".

Science makes no demand for believing in or performing any of the above. It's simply not a religion. Science is the aggregation of knowledge for the benefit of humanity.

As for your reference to the electron analogy, let me put it another way: You have a horse drawn carriage, but you don't know horse anatomy and physiology. Using that horse drawn carriage, you go pick up a recently deceased horse to study, from which you can learn horse anatomy and physiology. The point I'm making is that knowing how something works, and how to put something to use are indeed separate, but just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean you can't put it to use (even going so far as using it to power instruments to find out how it works). I hope I made that clear.

@Fallacy maybe it’s not the only assumption that can be made, one can make many assumptions. But it is the only logical conclusion. For one I point to the radiation that occurs in deep space, as well as the heat generated upon entry to our atmosphere.
99% chance that trace compounds found on the meteorite is from earth origin.
They have to find one of these rocks in space to prove that this is even possible.

@Sweepmyfloor

You cannot prove any of those claims are false…LOL.

"Absolutely an ancient person who experienced an airplane of today might describe it as a flying bird made of shiny stone but softer so that it could be a worked material. That person might explain how it was a manufactured machine with many intricate parts that propelled it into the sky. In the end his initial explaination gets boiled down to Flying Carpet. Every element of his description is right there. Carpets have many intricate parts and are made tougher than cloth you would wear, and may have been the most common technology advanced enough to compare it to."

You think they would confuse an airplane with a flying carpet? Have you been watching alot of Disney movies lately?

Personally, because an airplane would be so foreign to their understanding and imagination, I doubt they would even notice and comprehend it's existence unless it was A. extremely loud or B. Right in front of them. In which case they would make the assertion that carpets don't look like metal birds and they don't make whining or rumbling noises.

If it was piloted and the pilot came to the people and they made the association between the man and the flying craft they would probably assume he came from the heavens, considering that they had no comprehension of the cosmos.

--

"The religious people were the first scientists. They knew that such tellings and retellings would boil away the meaning of what they saw. They developed more permanent ways to record what they observed and perhaps some of the recordings had been diluted too much already. It is the religious that point back at discoveries of the past as fact. The scientific would have to make sure the observation of the past was true today."

Where are you getting this information?

Just because a zealot was the first to make observations does not mean he is in direct correlation with modern science and the scientific methods.

I have no doubt that any religious psuedo-scientist, upon not knowing how the observed physical reaction worked, would assume it was magic or the work of god.

Just because you do not have X, does not mean you fill it in with god or magic. It is simply X.

"I can say I believe in God. I don't need the proof that he exists. It is my pure faith that he works in my life. I am an electrician by trade. I work with the unseen magical force that I attempt to control on a daily basis. Many think they know how it works because they can call lightening into existence on command with other unseen forces. Magnets, chemicals, movement... those things are equally understood, that is to say very little. How do I say to ancient people how it works? It would be easy for me to say move the load stone past the copper bar to conjure the lightning god. Is is not the same thing? There is no observable way to explain these things to people. So today, we explain many intricate parts and many many more things we can not observe naturally, often using what we are trying to explain as proof of it's observation."

So, just because you don't understand or care how something works, you're suppose to put ignorance into someone else's mind?

Many people do understand how electricity works. Simply put, it is a follow of charged electrons along a path of attraction. There's a reason why you would likely be the last person sent back in time, given the ability to.

--

"You can not observe an electrical theory without using electricity. That is to say observing the electron push or pull other electrons without the use of a huge electrical instrument. That is like trying to define a word by using the word in a definition. The nature of this kind of science is religious. You have to have faith that observation using the instrument that you want to observe is pure.Try looking at a magnifying glass through a magnifying glass... Does it tell you how the magnifying glass works? Why would you use a magnifying glass to determine how other things work? Faith. Faith that someone observed how it worked in the past and that in continues to work today so I do not need to retest the instruments or the sources from which the observations came."

This would be called statistical faith, lets not get them confused. For instance, if I was on a plane I would be justified saying "I have faith this plane will land." because statistically, planes land more often than not.
It has nothing to do with religious orientation. Practical knowledge suggests that such an instrument will work.

--

"Faith and science go hand in hand. I think it was designed that way. The purists, the quakers of the science, have turned so far away from things they can not explain, that they say it doesn't exist. Even when Gods work is as observable as a magnetic field, or dare I say, are the same thing."

You're not a scientist, as you have clearly identified, and it is likely you do not congregate with scientific minds.

What is observable about your god's work? Please tell me one thing that is observable..

god is a magnetic field?

I can't be apart of this conversation anymore. It's heading nowhere but down and this logic is exhausting me.

To all like-minds trying to express truth, I bid thee farewell.

@ALH

"You cannot prove any of those claims are false…LOL."

Well your nice car and house hypothesis can be falsified on one of your own kinds' website, here:

http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=649

As for evolution, it is taught in schools, has insurmountable evidence and is backed by obvious observations of adaption and mutation.

@Fallacy "...Science is the aggregation of knowledge for the benefit of humanity..." Yup counting numbers for the sake of counting numbers is useless, unless it comes back and supports some human endeavor. So the support of human endeavor seems of importance. Growth endeavor in human spirit and soul are important for some people. For you, your reactance to the world is just a chemical response. You do not acknowledge the human spirit or soul. What is your purpose say 120 years from now? Will you just be feeding the worms and bacteria’s of the earth? The religious folk have visions of spiritual growth with infinity and you have visions of microbiology.

@Bubba: What's so bad about microbiology? I'm not participating in life with delusions of grandeur, I realize that if I'm going to make a difference in people's lives that I must be the one to do so. I make no false pretenses for my failings. I don't think to myself when life gets hard that I must be being tested by some great power, instead I realize I am learning. Through my own introspection I am enabled to recognize my mistakes and correct them. What is my purpose 120 years from now? I will be biologically degraded, I will exist no more from my own perspective. It doesn't frighten me, it's completely natural. I understand how it can frighten people, after all we spend our whole lives existing, and we're quite sure of our existence. The fact that our existence ends can be very scary, especially when we choose to make it such a monster. In 120 years from now, if I exist it won't be burning in some eternal punishment, or enjoying the proverbial good life floating on a cloud. If I exist in that time, then it should be in the memories I've left in other people. I personally don't live in preparation for reward or in fear of punishment. That's pointless to me, I can accomplish both of those on this planet, so doing so on some ethereal plane is of no benefit to me. My existence at the point I hope would be purely social, when the people I've known will remember me not as someone currently looking down on them, but someone who acts of kindness and compassion left an impact upon their lives. Humans are social animals after all, what more can we strive for than the continued existence and well being of our own species on this Earth, rather than attempting to justify some bet that everything will all be fine when we die.

TL;DR version: 120 years from now, think not of me as someone looking upon you from some ethereal plane, but remember me for my actions, my words, and the way I held myself. There is no better judge of a man, and a life lived, than those three things.

@Fallacy, when I wrote my comment before, I thought it sounded rather harsh. Even if you end life ends towards microbiology, you can be a inner growth oriented person. I mean, I know nothing about you to personally.

@RiceFernando, who ever you are, you spamming nerd, bite me.

@BubbaGump I'm pretty sure he's a bot.

At any rate, I'VE always found it interesting how people have looked at manipulation of Spacetime as a means to speed up travel when speeding up travel may be the solution to manipulating space time.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine you have one "portal" gate directly above the other end, by let's say 4 meters. Instinctively, one would think you would begin to accelerate through the portals until your terminal velocity is reached. In reality, the mass between the portals are of a constant density, with no concentration of mass. Therefore a 0G environment would be created on Earth.

@Matt5327, you know I am unique in the fact I always pay my bills on time, but beyond this I have not thought about advance mathematics since college..... So in response to "... OG environment would be created on Earth...” I have no response. But on the other hand thinking to myself out loud, how do you know GOD may object to you tinkering around and well just shut down you science experiment with no explanation to you. Mean while you are adjusting you gizmos and gadgets and flux compactor and what knots with a puzzle look on your head and a wrinkled forehead wondering, “ THAT SHOULD OF WORKED?”

@Fallacy I'm sorry you didn't make it clear. Dissecting a horse might get me closer to understanding a few things about how a horse works, but then you have a dilemma in finding out how the heart works, how the stomach works, or organs that I would likely not know the name of work. It is faith that it works and I don't need to know how that makes science and religion go hand in hand. I could run into a fellow who similarly wanted to know why putting oats in one end makes the cart go forward. I could give him the most detailed description of transference of energy and he would be bound by faith to believe me... or find out for himself. You see even in your definition of ritual means the same as mine. I say Science has become a religion because of the rituals that have taken place to prove the assertions of its various clerics... I mean scientists. It was ritual that ousted those cold fusion guys. Just like it is ritual that glorifies those climate change guys. Rituals were done, results were had. The difference is that religious rituals may result in one time non repeatable events and that is just fine for the observer. Superstitions and the word use to describe them are a way of saying one action does not correlate with another. I could say that DNA equaling life is a superstition. But currently it's the only way we can separate fire from being considered life.

@Sweepya You are a bad scientist. You have changed the facts to fit your hypothesis. You read my words but you understood what you wanted. Point to where I have advocated a religion. I advocate religion... even yours. "I don't care what you believe in, just believe in it." Shepard Book.

I do think people would confuse an airplane with a flying carpet. You have clearly never played the game telephone. Furthermore I will describe an event that I watched today. You tell me what I watched.

These people whose skin were pale as ash were caged in a field. They were armed with wide head clubs and were strong as they wielded them with little effort and great power. All the people seam to fear a small furry animal. They beat it with their clubs, grunting with all their might. They regularly tested the animal to see that it was dead. If the animal was not they beat it some more. One of the animals escaped the cage and came near me and I ran, because I not having a club nor the massive strength of these ash people was clearly in peril.

You will likely guess at what I am referring to, but this is how things get translated especially by people who have no scientific method or formal education. Try talking to a six year old and ask him how the world works. Their responses are only funny to those that know better. Those with children know their observations are likely the purest as they have no preconception and simultaneously frustrating to understand their descriptions of what they saw. My child at three said I have a Jello tummy, my tummy is full of Jello. I seldom speak of anatomy to my children and at three it is enough for them to know that when the red stuff comes out, you scream out loud. Even when you call the red stuff Jello. We now call it blood and occasionally we don't scream out loud when it comes out.

About my associates: You seem to think they are not scientifically credentialed and you seem to think I admitted to something that would lend you to a belief that I am somehow unintelligent. I have taught college albeit community and I have taught more than I attended. I don't think my associates in the physics department would take kindly to being discredited. The geologist has become weary of my queries however. When I said I was an electrician by trade that merely means I have practiced and am skilled and versed in that trade. I could also say I'm a cook, a chemist, and a healthcare provider but I would not be qualified under most of these titles to speak. My hobby is phylosophy so I think I have many of the sciences covered.

And finally in your observation of starting with X and filling it with God as a bad idea, I agree you will have X. I however start with God... I don't have an X. Staring with a known and explaining how it works from there is exactly how science teaching works. When I explain electrons (invisible, colorless, odorless, tasteless) I don't start with nothing. I start with something they know. Something I can show them. I have a pile of ping pong balls. I push the ping pong balls around and I bounce them in a box so we can see the random nature of elections. I then switch to water when I describe them. These are common tactics to describe the unknown. Where did all these things come from? God, or gods, magic, absentee landlords, invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, or any thing of your fancy but the likely hood that it came from a singularity is smaller than any of the other explanations, by the very math that is used to describe the singularity. The math actually tries to suggest that everything came from nothing yet when I say God came from nothing it becomes laughable.

@Matt5327 You seem to think a bit about time space so I pose this question to you. Atomic clocks (or even mechanical ones) tick faster in outer space (empirical observable fact), why is it assumed that movement is the reason for this? Why is it not still the initial assumption of lack of gravity? Atomic clocks in plains, boats, or cars don't seem to have this problem.

It is my assumption is that gravity is a force that acts on time keeping methods. As much as an hourglass would stop in space, and spring wound clocks speed up because of a lack of resistance, could it be that microwave energy is also affected by gravity? I come to this conclusion by simple route that if a black hole consumes electromagnetic energy because it's gravity is so strong then why would the earth's gravity not also suck some energy away from tiny atoms, where the removal of the Earth restores the lost energy.

@DJ_D:

"It is faith that it works and I don't need to know how that makes science and religion go hand in hand. I could run into a fellow who similarly wanted to know why putting oats in one end makes the cart go forward. I could give him the most detailed description of transference of energy and he would be bound by faith to believe me... or find out for himself."

Ah, here we see something! Just because YOU have faith that something works rather than learning how it works does not equate to science being faith based or having faith. Science has no need for faith, anything and everything in science can be tested again and again to be proven true. There is no room for "it just works, take it on faith" in science, as the questions of "why?" and "how?" are far too great.

Again though, I feel I have to reiterate: there are no rituals in science. Rituals are religious, they pay homage to the supernatural. Science does not, science only deals with the natural, with discovering how and why things work. If you make take one distinction from this, please take this: science does not require faith. Just because you place faith that something from science works does not mean that faith is required by science. That is your personal faith, not scientific faith.

".....In what appears to be seriously big news from a team of NASA-funded researchers, scientists have found evidence that some building blocks of DNA--including two of the four nucleobases that make up our genetic code...."

@DJ_D If that was meant to be a subtle argument, realize that as so far I've been arguing in favor of the same points as you.

If not, well, then, the following.
In a plane, and even a car, the atomic clock still differs with motion. The problem is, the less relative motion, the more difficult it is to detect, because the difference is that much smaller. Special Relativity based mathematics works perfectly for our traveling satillites, which is necessary because they are traveling, relative to the Earth, very quickly.

Yes, special relativity is a theory, and may be wrong. But it has a lot of evidence to back it.

Which is why I used it as a point earlier, actually. We have faith in this theory because it works. It may be wrong, but for now, I'll accept it as true.

@Fallacy I agree with you that in science there is no need for faith... but how many of us have a RonCo Pocket Collider that folds neatly under a bed? This is where science becomes a religion. The highest priests are the ones with the highest pedigree. People don't do the research... I know I don't. This is the age of Science as a religion. Simple repeatable ritualistic experiments for the plebeians, while secret magics reviled from the gods themselves for the more enlightened. And you know what... people don't care, or they care in about the same frequency as becoming a high priest in some other religion. The danger is that that the masters of Science tell the lay that they have no free will. That their world is mundane, their life meaningless, and their reactions to their environment were chemically predetermined. Larger dangers like conjuring social diseases out of normal human behavior, has lead to a world wide culture that is antihomogeniouse, and seeks to leave no stone unturned. I come at this as an American so you see my problem with this kind of religious persecution my forefathers sought to escape, (and then later taxes but that's another story.)

@DJ_D Heehee… I've just remembered high school chemistry.

I guess Science is similar to being a Jew (sounds like a horrible comparison, but please stay with me on this for awhile), in that one can be Jewish in faith, or Jewish in nationality. There are indeed the scientists who look as science as a method, or a way for satisfying curiosity, but increasingly people follow science taking things for granted.

If a scientist writes a false paper for instance, while it is rejected later, people instantly gobble it up as fact.

@Matt You stated the Faith/Theory thing so eloquently and less complicated than I. Thank you.

My questions are more about methodology to the conclusion of the theory rather than seeking an answer. I'm rereading my post and it sounded like half gibberish on the second read. The atomic clocks go slower in space not faster correct? So that kinda blows the whole premiss of my question. Sorry :(

The never ending blog that will not die..............

@DJ_D really no problem at all.

@BubbaGump I kind of like that, it's almost like a buzz convo or something.

Matt5327, Oh the never ending blog is fine and people do write at times good opposing comments and sometimes they bring new information as well. Its been a fun ride of reading and learning. It just get boring at times, when people begin to repeat that same comments. Just because I or you or anyone repeats ourselves several times, does not give any more merit to what we say. But on a bright spot, sometimes when people are in close proximity they get louder as if the volume makes them more correct. At least in typing and reading the volume is low, lol. I have enjoy reading everyones comments here.

@DJ_D: "I agree with you that in science there is no need for faith."

*I suppose that's progress. Science is a no faith requirement study of the universe and everything within it. Religions on the other hand hold faith as an absolute requirement. Faith in the unknowable power of a proposed creator, who defies the laws of the universe.

"But how many of us have a RonCo Pocket Collider that folds neatly under a bed? This is where science becomes a religion."

*It does not become a religion simply because one does not want to look up the information or find proof positive of scientific facts. There is no temple in which mechanical engineers pray to some supernatural force in hopes that all cars should continue working properly, and be protected from breakdowns, and repent for the coming carmageddon. They don't send out fliers or hold services, or attempt to convert people to believing that their car exists, and only through driving it and having faith in it can salvation be achieved. There is no faith required for you car to operate, you either choose to be educate yourself on the hows and whys, or you choose to place your personal faith (and in a small way willingly remain ignorant of the amazing things to occur to get you five miles down the road)in the operation of the car. Your personal faith in the operation of the car is not organized with other people, you do not join in ritual worship with others to pay homage to the engineers that designed your car. And if you simply choose to have personal faith that your car works it does not imply that people who own another make and model of car are wrong, that their car does not work and they shall be punished eternally for purchasing the wrong car.

*Will you now disagree with me that there is a difference between a personal faith and organized faith required by religions, or do you agree?

"And you know what... people don't care"

*I had to take it out of context, but I have a feeling you'll agree with it as a stand-alone anyway. I certainly agree that people not caring is definitely a problem in any situation.

"The danger is that that the masters of Science tell the lay that they have no free will. That their world is mundane, their life meaningless, and their reactions to their environment were chemically predetermined."

*That is a stretch at best. No where in the annals of science does it state definitively and with observable factual proof that we do not have free will. I'm not sure why you think a world without the supernatural is mundane. I absolutely disagree. The universe is an amazing place to exist. To me, the staggering amount of actions required to simply get out of bed in the morning is an amazing thing, because I choose not to take it for granted. Have you chosen to ignore these things constantly going on around us? Ever stop to consider the physics of plunging your spoon into your bowl of cereal, walking to your car, or indeed even posting on this website? It would be nice if those questions proved even minutely eye opening, that the universe by itself, regardless of whether or not you are religious, is an infinitely amazing place.

"Larger dangers like conjuring social diseases out of normal human behavior, has lead to a world wide culture that is antihomogeniouse, and seeks to leave no stone unturned."

*What exactly is it that you speak of that is not homogeneous? Scientific facts are the same between America, Australia, and Asia. Yes, the people themselves are different. They have biological differences, cultural differences, accents, idioms, etc etc. Is that a bad thing to you? Is leaving no stone unturned a bad thing to you as well?

"I come at this as an American so you see my problem with this kind of religious persecution my forefathers sought to escape, (and then later taxes but that's another story.)"

*I share a similar feeling and patriotism. Long has my family been involved with the development, expansion, creation, and preservation of this country. This is why I am ashamed of of the poor leadership, and the lack of common sense, and of the persecution we have today. Would you believe that there are organizations that I would be unable to join simply because I am not religious? Am I not human like the priest of my local church simply because I do not believe in a deity? Do I not bleed like a human, learn like a human, feel like a human, simply because I do not believe in some supernatural force determining my fate? Indeed a part of this country's founding was to escape the persecution of religions via the government, but when it is the religions doing the persecuting do you turn a blind eye?

@Fallacy is being persecuted by religion! Oh, the irony.

@BubbaGump Quite. That's why I'm enjoying talking about space-time so much right now.

@Fallacy I'm not saying people don't want to find out the facts. I don't know anyone who practices a religion that doesn't wan't to know their gods will. The simple truth is that most people are incapable of finding out the facts in either regard. Science is expensive bulky and takes a lifetime or several to come to most profound conclusions... sound familiar? It is not the religion that requires faith. It is the priests that require faith so that their understandings of the will of their deity will continue. Deities exist whether you believe in them or not. Lets take the big ones in their fields Mosses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Adi Sankara to name a few, require faith in their teachings. Some requirements are more extreme than others we can agree I'm sure. Science has the least amount of requirements yet they are there and they are about as equally absolute and diverse as another religion. As a matter of the scientific method (good for any occasion) to deny the validity of anyone's religion based on its probability is scientifically wrong.

You are human. Don't ever allow anyone devalue you. Why would you wan't to join an organization that requires you to believe something you do not? Take the boy scouts. They say you must believe in a deity and on all outward appearances they seem Christian enough and have many accolades to the regard. However their oath is most confusing for a Christian. In order of your duty you serve God first, country second, other people (I have always assumed that meant aliens to this country), and finally self. As a Christian myself, no scout master has answered this for me. I ponder that my duty is to me first oddly enough from a Jewish tradition called Havdalah. This teaches me that I will not be able to glorify god if my needs have not been met. Second after self is family as told in 1Timothy5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever. Timothy reiterates that self first, household second. We can then extrapulate who should be next neighbors but then it should be aliens. This happens before country because the country is not a person the country is a government and is only slightly confusing because the American government is at the will of the people and makes it pretty clear not at the will of God. So I as a Christian could not take the scout oath for it goes against my belief. You should not want to join or immerse yourself in an environment that is acidic to your beliefs.

Plus the 12 Law of a Scout dictates they can not dismiss you for your belief in something other than a deity. A law they continually break: A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

I'm no scout but I can live by this better than the Scout Masters can. Jesus said it better when he said, "Love they neighbor as you would thyself." Or RuPaul's most personal enlightenment: "If you don't love yourself, how in the hell you gonna love somebody else?" Jesus, nor RuPaul suggest loving God more, God tested Abraham for devotion and then divided his house after he proved his love to God above his own son. Was it a reward? No. To bad Abraham didn't have RuPaul.

Here's a little something.

The root of science is logic.
The root of logic is philosophy.
The root of philosophy is faith.

@Matt5327 Nice. On that I'm done.

I mean... this is just absolutely disgusting.

@Matt

"Here's a little something.
The root of science is logic.
The root of logic is philosophy.
The root of philosophy is faith."

What?

How is the root of philosophy faith? At all?

Ah, word play..

And look at how your teammate was just sold on it.

@DJ_D

I see... faith makes you blind, stupid, and schizophrenic.

@Fallacy

There's no point arguing. Like the quote goes...

"Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people."

@Sweepya I think your confusing faith with religion.

I may have faith that my friends will not betray me, but I do not worship them as a deity.

Faith however is also the ultimate root of religion.

Philosophy is rooted in the ideas that lack evidence, and follow whim as opposed to logic. In other words, faith.

Faith, is blind ambition that at times achieve goals which science or even common sense this thing can not be achieved. Faith is a mystery to all the outsiders of a person having faith. I can not put in your hands the source of where my faith comes and so this often dispoints others and scientist. You either feel or you don't. If you have felt faith in the past and used it, then you understand it. Much of faith is a mystery.

No you morons.

There's statistical/rational faith and there is irrational/blind faith.

Statistical/rational

"I have faith this plane will land."

Because statistically, planes land more often than not.

Religious/blind

"I have faith that there is a god manipulating the universe."

This is blind/irrational because there is nothing to support this claim.

You may have faith your friends won't betray you because their actions, behavior, and history support this.

Mostly the two faith's are divided based on observable or rational grounds.

But if you'd like to get definition technical.. Faith by its very definition is the surrendering of common sense and rationality. b (1)

Faith
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

@Sweepya, why do you call people morons? Is there something wrong with you, seriously? Can't you just make a intelligent informative response.

@BubbaGump Unfortunately I think not.

@Sweepya Nonetheless, my statement regarding philosophy remains true - it is based on blind faith. If you can only find trust in someone through statistics and history, you have a serious problem.

Here's the expanded version of what I said.

When we are young, we take everything for granted. We have simple faith in what people tell us, be it science, religion, history, whatever, because that is the only way input can be obtained.

As one gets older they form individual personalities and ultimately, totally unique philosophies based on what they are taught.

These philosophies ultimately determine the logical process unique to each human. Every human uses logic, even the totally insane. The logic is just so different from the trends that it is deemed as 'flawed.'

Because for each human logic itself is different, logic dictates science, religion, history, simply everything. And every bit of it is interpretation.

Therefore, it is truly impossible to determine the absolute truth in anything, even science, which ultimately requires us to take existence itself for granted.

And if you can only listen to atheist scientists, try listening to the multitudes of them saying THE EXACT SAME THING.

2+2=4

Huh, I arrived at an absolute truth with logic.

Matt I don't think you have a proper understanding of logic. What you described is more accurately deemed an individual thought process, not logic itself.

To the contrary. What you showed me was math, an execution of binary logic. But what of Analog signal logic, and the far more complex variations we humans posses?

Log•ic (noun)
1.Reasoning conducted or assessed According to strict principles of validity: "experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic."

Hitler reasoned that he should kill off the Jews - his LOGIC (which we with our upbringing see as flawed). I'm certain that we would both agree that his decision was a poor one - but it doesn't mean he didn't use logic to get to his assessment.

@Matt:

And I quote:

Log•ic (noun)
1.Reasoning conducted or assessed According to strict principles of validity

If you don't understand how that definition applies directly to math then perhaps you should come back after some time away from trying to understand it. A fresh perspective may help you. Logically, something is either right or wrong.

Hitler's thought process regarding race was in no way logical. Quite the opposite it was rather illogical. It wasn't "his logic", it was his thought process.

@Fallacy I suppose my mistake was thinking that I could educate you. I apologize, and will focus on the future on minds worth something to society.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Love it.

DNA fragments found in an asteroid....... ;)

Actually the reason that DNA was found from Comets and Asteroids is they were once Planets like Earth.
1/5 the power of a nuclear reaction (Sun) is neutrinos and neutrinos can go through Planets and Moons. There is in core of Planets & Moons Nuclear Force Crystal that can stop & store this Energy.
Since the crust of Moon hardens first it holds back this energy for a billion years first, then starts leaving a ring as this energy starts to leak, then burst into fusion, and as fusion lands on Planet, lighting Planet it orbits on fusion and shoots it like a rocket till fusion goes out leaving a Comet that sheds rocks with DNA of life that was on Planet.
Unless a 40 megaton bomb is placed in orbit between Planet & Moon that will go off after Moon explodes in fusion and separates fusion, keeping fusion from hitting Planet, and keeping it from becoming a comet. From “The Neutrino Report” copyrights all right reserved.
“When the Messiah comes to save Earth, their will be a star”, I say this 40 Megaton bomb Satellite between Earth and Moon is that star that will save Earth.

It’s a pity this commentary never reach 300. I was going to sell my stock when it reaches that height, oh well.

what stocks bubba? :p

Wow, this article was a majorly disappointing bit of bait-and-switch! The headline claims that a batch of DNA molecules was discovered in meteorites, but the article does not support that assertion. DNA is made of nucleotides, but nucleotides are not DNA. The difference is like the difference between an alphabet and a novel.

So what if nucleotides can form in meteorites? Are you saying that nucleotides can't form on Earth in far greater numbers?

This article is mostly a bunch of hype.

This is not surprising. In 2013 will be presented "General Theory of the origin of life." The space-energy model translation nonliving matter into living, allows to carry out this process at any point the universe. www.dna-space-life.blogspot.com