zapatos

So according to your logic, as I gave my children no choice, they must be Catholic today. Gee, I wonder if that is true.

Bullshit. That's no different than saying that by sending kids to a secular school you've given them no choice but to be secular. You are giving entirely too much credit to the impact school has on people. How many people on this site went to religious schools but CHOSE not to be religious? No problem, it was probably my fault. After getting three quick responses I guessed that I didn't communicate clearly enough.

I did pay myself. Not all schools are public schools. My society does not purport to be secular. The government and a subset of the society purports to be secular. As I said, I agree that no public funding should be used. What I objected to was the suggestion that religion should not be taught in school regardless of whether or not it was publicly funded. You'll have to remind me where I said there is something wrong with my children learning about other religions, or that it infringed on my rights. What I said infringed on my rights was you trying to keep the teaching of a single religion out of schools if no public funding is used. That is my position too, unless it is a secular view of religions (history, basic tenets, etc.). You know, by starting off your sentence with "I am an atheist so..." you make it sound like you think all atheists, and only atheists, do those things you followed up with. If that is what you think, I can assure you, you are mistaken. You've got balls the size of watermelons to think you have any idea at all whether or not I gave my children any choice. You don't know me or how my children were raised. It probably helps. I think you are getting dangerously close to violating rules regarding the denigration of entire groups. Do you think your attitude about entire groups would fly here if you were talking about, say, historically black universities?

As someone who attended and sent my children to Catholic schools, I couldn't disagree more with your sentiment that the specifics of one religion should not be taught in school. At least in the United States that is my right, and I think it is a mistake for others to believe they are justified in determining how my children learn. I agree that no public funding should be used, but I object to your proposal which is essentially an attempt to suppress certain types of thoughts and beliefs. No good will come from one group trying to control how another group chooses to teach their children about religion. If you feel religion is wrong, then convince them by showing them a better way.

Coincidentally I read an article about Marie Cure this weekend. In addition to what you've already pointed out, I learned that her original notebooks are kept in a lead lined box due to radioactivity. Anyone examining them must wear appropriate safety gear.

I hope you are joking, lest probably upwards of 95% of the computer using population doesn't deserve to finish primary school. Probably 100% of the non-computer using population. One of the nice things about today's computers is that most functions, including backups, can be automated even by neophytes.

Perhaps we should stick to definitions widely accepted and used, otherwise we'll never be able to have a meaningful discussion. Most especially on a science forum.

Isolation Better coaches Natural Resources Religion Access to better makeup and fashionable clothing Technology Steroids High end bicycles

Unfortunately, none of us can determine whether there is a God or not no matter how hard we try or how much we want it. Therefore, I cannot think of a less important question.

It's in the works. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/100-million-plan-will-send-probes-to-the-nearest-star1/

What is it that you think did happen?

Very good argument. +1 Unfortunately our one lousy data point leaves a lot to be desired, but your analysis lets me look at this with a better perspective.

That makes no sense to me at all. You are saying that if it is rare enough to happen only once every 5 billion years, then it us unlikely that it would have happened here once after 5 billion years. If something takes 200,000,000 years to occur when the conditions are correct, I think we should be careful about labeling that "extraordinarily quickly'. I'll admit I'm no statistical expert, but can you please go into a bit more detail on how our one known occurrence in five billion years aligns better with the idea that abiogenesis is not rare? That seems like rather convoluted logic.

The remaining duration of the earth does not allow for infinite iterations. This started out as a conversation about the likelihood of abiogenesis occurring again on Earth if all life ends, and it keeps moving to whether or not abiogenesis can occur anywhere in the universe given an unlimited amount of time. I have never suggested that life is unlikely to occur somewhere in the universe, or even on Earth, given enough time, so there is really no point in people telling me it is possible. If anyone can provide pragmatic support for the assertion that abiogenesis is again likely to occur on Earth if all life ends here, I'd love to see it. Otherwise we just seem to be going in circles.

I'm not used to you being the type to move the goalposts so much. I'll drop out at this point.

Just as I asked of dimreeper, will you please provide some scientific references to back up that assertion? The one I highlighted for you. "oxygen would soon fall to zero without life, so at some point in the future, given the right conditions and our only data point would, almost dictate, life will occur again." Then it's a good thing I'm not asserting it will never happen again anywhere in the universe. Do I really need to remind you that my only claim was that it may be a rare event?

I don't mean to be rude, but will you please provide some scientific references to back up that assertion? I am unaware of any science that supports your claim that life on earth is almost a certainty.

I thank you for that. The interview you found regarding the chemistry of the ocean supports my position that started my conversation on this topic; "I suspect we either currently have the wrong environment for it, or it is simply extremely rare." Frankly, I'm quite surprised this position has received so much pushback. If anyone would care to point out evidence that we do have the right environment for new life to form, or that abiogenesis is not extremely rare, I'd love to see it. I'll concede my speculation is indeed more unlikely as I was simply countering one speculation with another. But I've never claimed abiogenesis won't happen again. I only suggested that given the evidence thus far, it might be rare. The fact that my speculation is less likely than yours, does not in any way suggest that abiogenesis is not rare. I think it is a mistake on your part to leave out our observations past Mars. There is a reason SETI uses their particular strategy in the search for life.

Perhaps we are the only life that ever did or ever will form in the universe. There could have been a recycling universe and after billions of iterations we are still the only place life has ever started. Speculations are great fun, but when we look at actual data points, we still have evidence for only one start of life. Given the data thus far it is not unreasonable to suggest that abiogenesis may be a rare event.

Perhaps some sort of test prior to being allowed to post...

That's my point. In the ensuing four billion years we've never seen it happen again. Your refusal to acknowledge that a single known event in four billion years constitutes a rare occurrence seem disingenuous.

Good thing I never argued otherwise then... We are talking about the formation of new life if existing life is wiped out from this planet. And yes, there is something to suggest that the formation of new life on this planet is rare. Of all the forms of life we have examined that exist on this planet, all have a common ancestor.

The timescale for Earth and sun is only eight billion years, and we have already passed the half-way point. We are 13 billion years into the life of the universe. And yet we have evidence of life occurring only once during the first half of the life of the earth, and no indication life exists anywhere else in the universe. None of this indicates new life forms won't bloom on Earth during the next four billion years if all current life on Earth is wiped out, but I think it is reasonable to suggest that the formation of life here might be rare. I also fail to see how the existence of synthetic life in our current environment, requiring both man and other pre-existing forms of life to create, is any indication that life can begin again if all existing life leaves the planet.

You called my suggestion that we might currently have the wrong environment for life to form, or that the formation of life is a rare happening, a non-sequitur. As the basis of your conclusion you used a reference showing that life on earth began one time, over four billion years ago, 124 million years after water showed up. I'm trying to figure out why you think that a single known occurrence of life forming on earth four billion years ago, means that my suggestion that either the environment we have now is wrong for life, or that the formation of life at all is a rare thing, is illogical. And you now seem to be buttressing your assertion that my argument is illogical by making speculations for which there is no evidence. What part of my argument is illogical and why? Seems to me that calling my statement illogical was a bit unfair.

Or not...