Evidence God Exists

[Loki_999]

Gotta call bull then on your statement because you presented it as fact. There is reason to believe there may have been life on either Venus or Mars, but no hard evidence.

Got to be careful you know about making firm statements.... their are theists on these boards who will ridicule us if we start making unfounded claims.

Overall though its an interesting possibility, and that life on earth started from life on another planet. Although if it started on another planet first then it could equally have started here as well so without some evidence of DNA fragments being found on either Mars or Venus then there is no reason to believe that our life is the same as the life that (may have) formed there. After all, DNA is surely not the only possible basis for life, RNA was an also-ran, and others like GNA/TNA(?) have been synthesized. Neucleonic acids may even not be the only possible basis, just the only one we we know of.

Looking at what we understand of pre-history and the history of the planet, there is little reason to believe that life came from elsewhere. Current theories put the start of life at something like 4Ga years ago, and the Earth formed something like 4.5Ga, which is only 1/2 a Ga difference and for a lot of that time earth was being heavily bombarded and impacted so not very easy for early life to survive. In order for life to have arisen on another planet first it would have had to develop in a shorter timescale than that of thought to have happened on earth and then also jumped to earth as well....

Not saying it isn't possible, its just not the simplest theory, Occam's razor and all that.

[Zen Badger]

When I present evidence and say it's a logical conclusion that there's a God, what I get here is that I'm begging the question. Sounds like a double standard.

Evolution is the logical conclusion, not god. Remember we have evidence for evolution.

[KichigaiNeko]

Gotta call bull then on your statement because you presented it as fact. There is reason to believe there may have been life on either Venus or Mars, but no hard evidence.

Got to be careful you know about making firm statements.... their are theists on these boards who will ridicule us if we start making unfounded claims.

Overall though its an interesting possibility, and that life on earth started from life on another planet. Although if it started on another planet first then it could equally have started here as well so without some evidence of DNA fragments being found on either Mars or Venus then there is no reason to believe that our life is the same as the life that (may have) formed there. After all, DNA is surely not the only possible basis for life, RNA was an also-ran, and others like GNA/TNA(?) have been synthesized. Neucleonic acids may even not be the only possible basis, just the only one we we know of.

Looking at what we understand of pre-history and the history of the planet, there is little reason to believe that life came from elsewhere. Current theories put the start of life at something like 4Ga years ago, and the Earth formed something like 4.5Ga, which is only 1/2 a Ga difference and for a lot of that time earth was being heavily bombarded and impacted so not very easy for early life to survive. In order for life to have arisen on another planet first it would have had to develop in a shorter timescale than that of thought to have happened on earth and then also jumped to earth as well....

Not saying it isn't possible, its just not the simplest theory, Occam's razor and all that.

Just WHAT are we defining as 'Life' here ...a microbe can be counted as 'Life' on a distant planet(toid) so let's get some clarification cos too may people think that because science speculates that 'life' once / does exist on Mars or Venus that that is proof positive that humanoid species are there.

sometimes 'le plebian' are just too simplistic!

[Ace Otana]

Gotta call bull then on your statement because you presented it as fact. There is reason to believe there may have been life on either Venus or Mars, but no hard evidence.

*Big wooper of a snip*

It's not fact but it's the next best thing. Also, the statements comes from the discovery channel which received this data from NASA and it's scientists and the very expensive probe they have sent to investigate the planet. Geological marks that point to a once flowing river on mars. Which means the planet had an atmospher. Big enough evidence to convince me that mars could at one point support life and did. It's not a scientific fact but a working scientific theory. Good enough.

have been life on either Venus or Mars, but no hard evidence.

True, there is no hard evidence. However, based on what has been found (like dry land that looks like it was shapped by water long ago), it has been concluded that it's very possible that life had existed on both planets. Scientific theories are fucking awsome! So much infomation missing, and the lust to find that missing infomation with the evidence to support it.

Tell me what do you see in this picture of mars surface?

A river was there.

Got to be careful you know about making firm statements.... their are theists on these boards who will ridicule us if we start making unfounded claims.

Firstly, I don't make things up. This was presented on the discovery channel. Also, unlike a typical theist, If I was proven wrong about something, I would be more than happy to admit to being wrong about it.
The claims that life may have started on mars or venus is backed up by evidence of water and this concludes that there was an atmosphere based on geological markings on the surface. Not exactly an "unfounded claim".

[Shell B]

...Is it typical for a young atheist to be able to observe the world around her better than an old theist?

Who you calling old?

I don't know, maybe the guy running around acting like an atheist's youth dictates her ability to reason. Just sounded like something my grandmother would say, or a really smug theist in their 20's or 30's.

Since those are the only two choices as I guess I'll take smug. Hey, did we just have our first fight?

Nah, couldn't have been a fight. I didn't drop a single f-bomb.

Aw, that's so sweet. Thanks, my dear. Shell B you are one foxy lady!

Uh. . . thanks.

[Loki_999]

*snip*

Some decent points, but still lacking in evidence. Even if there were rivers on Mars/Venus it doesn't say anything about life. Life takes a long time to develop from simple chains of molecules up to to something like DNA... and before DNA (or something similar), you can't even be talking about life as DNA is in that grey area on the life scale (and of course this is one of the areas where theists have a problem, they see the definition of life as something binary, not subtle shades).

So, maybe there were rivers.... for even thousands of years.... but maybe not enough time for life to develop. Here is another point. Some of the problems with abiogenisis is that current earth conditions would not allow the spontaneous creation of life (of course worthy of a debate all by itself), and that only early earth conditions allowed it... but we have rivers. Who is to say that early Venus/Mars had the right conditions, even though they possibly had rivers.

Unfortunately, while I am excited about this possibility, its still too unclear to make firm statements that life existed on Venus and/or Mars. I'll have to be agnostic regarding this until more facts are discovered.

*snip*

As per my point above. Many people view life as a binary concept. Either something is alive, or it isnt. I remember reading many years ago about one definition of life which included something like 7 requirements before something was considered alive.... these requirements basically would not have covered lower lifeforms such as microbes.

I can't remember them all but some of them were: reproduction/replication, energy absorption (food), excretion, locomotion (this one is stupid i know... trees are the first thing that comes to mind), and something like ability to make decisions.

It wouldn't surprise me if this definition was thought up by some religious group considering the animal (even human) centric requirements.

So what are the exact requirements to be considered life?

Are viruii life?
Are viroids life?
Are single cells alive? (is a single cell from your body alive?)
Is DNA life?
Is RNA life?

To my mind, each stage of complexity brings differing levels of lifelikeness to the equation. There is no on/off switch for life. Simply steps on the road from simple chemical bonds to complex organisms like ourselves, and who knows, maybe even more complex beings that are higher lifeforms than mammals.... we are not necessarily the most advanced forms of life in the universe.

Did i ramble too much? Been drinking.... sorry.

[Ace Otana]

Mars in it's former glory.
Active volcanos, oceans, rivers, atmosphere and weather. Much like earth.
Just thought I'd add that.

If you are not convinced then that's fine. Not my place to convince you. Wasn't me who sent probes to the planet, analised data by a team of scientists.

They say they have found fossils. If life never kicked off on mars then where did the fossils come from?

It's because of what they have found that convinces me that life did indeed kick off there. Just didn't get that far. Something about the planet's atmosphere and it's gravity if I can remember correctly.

for even thousands of years

Try a few hundred million.

[Paul the Human]

I think it's quite possible there was once life (however microbial) on both Mars and Venus. It is logical to think that the conditions for each were pretty similar to that of Earth. I doubt, however, that life traveled from one planet to the other. More likely is that life sprung up on all three and Earth is the only one in the 'Goldilocks Zone', so it was successful here.

[Edwardo Piet]

Wow I just realized that this has become the biggest thread.... bigger than Jon Paul's "I am an orthodox Christian ask me a question" thread.

EvF

[Minimalist]

And with all that he has yet to present any "evidence" at all.


Curious.