191–200 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That article gave no numbers. It made a claim and didn't back it up.
There's links in the article to Scientific American which also had papers from October 2020.
"From the moment the invaders arrived, breathed our air, ate and drank, they were doomed. They were undone, destroyed, after all of man's weapons and devices had failed, by the tiniest creatures that God in his wisdom put upon this earth. By the toll of a billion deaths, man had earned his immunity, his right to survive among this planet's infinite organisms. And that right is ours against all challenges. For neither…
There's a concept in domestication that it's not always clear in a symbiotic relationship as to which party is in 'control' of the relationship, especially when one party gets a huge boost in reproductive rates from the other. Did humans domesticate dogs, or did dogs domesticate humans? Viruses are specialized. They won't attack aliens. Bacteria might. It's the fungi in many respects that are the masters of this plan…
Note: I'm not saying viruses don't have conditions they need met, they do, obviously. I'm saying they can attack an alien just as likely as they can a human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the tiniest creatures God in his wisdom put upon this earth" The writing is nice but flawed. Since War of the Worlds, we have advanced tremendously and no longer need intelligent design or creation myths to explain microorganisms. Reproducible, testable science demonstrates that in the primordial oceans, self-replicating molecules which were slightly better at self-replicating produced globules of matter capable of…
"Reproducible, testable science demonstrates that in the primordial oceans, self-replicating molecules which were slightly better at self-replicating produced globules of matter capable of inheritance." Hang on. Are you implying that science created artifical life from just elements? Because that would be news to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
Given the history of shamanistic figures explaining the natural world in terms of magical spirits and having magical definitions replaced with natural ones thousands of years one can perhaps be forgiven for concluding that the original of life was just another domino waiting to fall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the tiniest creatures God in his wisdom put upon this earth" The writing is nice but flawed. Since War of the Worlds, we have advanced tremendously and no longer need intelligent design or creation myths to explain microorganisms. Reproducible, testable science demonstrates that in the primordial oceans, self-replicating molecules which were slightly better at self-replicating produced globules of matter capable of…
It's always those that are the least confident in their atheism that feel the need to constantly defend it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science does not and will not be able to explain the origin of life. The statement still holds. It's very arrogant of us to assume otherwise.
Is the theory of gravity still something to be considered only a theory?
Another reason I personally would not like to get vaccinated. Nature and evolution solve all problems sooner or later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> science can find it. There is no thing called "science" that finds answers. There are scientists who can form hypotheses about the universe they can see and perceive and check whether they are consistent with what they can see and perceive. We are mostly ants on a balloon: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-fact-tha... We do not know where the balloon came from.
science is our method of finding answers. When we say science can find it, we mean scientists using the scientific method.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the tiniest creatures God in his wisdom put upon this earth" The writing is nice but flawed. Since War of the Worlds, we have advanced tremendously and no longer need intelligent design or creation myths to explain microorganisms. Reproducible, testable science demonstrates that in the primordial oceans, self-replicating molecules which were slightly better at self-replicating produced globules of matter capable of…
Science does not and will not be able to explain the origin of life. The statement still holds. It's very arrogant of us to assume otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Science does not and will not be able to explain the origin of life. The statement still holds. It's very arrogant of us to assume otherwise.
I suggest you defend that position instead of stating it so boldly and asking us to accept your reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't it. If it has an answer science can find it.
Because it's beyond the realm of space and time. We can't go back before t=0 when the universe was created.