zapatos

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...

So are you saying that our environment is similar to what it was billions of years ago, or are you saying that one occurrence of life forming in four billion years is not all that rare?

I have my doubts. Given that we've only observed the results of life originating once on this planet in billions of years, I suspect we either currently have the wrong environment for it, or it is simply extremely rare.

LOL! I had no idea that was in the Bible!

I don't think I am mixing the two. They seem very distinct to me, which is what I've been trying to convey. First look at your definition of 'supernatural'. -- "Beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature". Because of the definition of 'supernatural', I can say with 100% certainty I will never be able to scientifically understand the supernatural. Something being supernatural DOES mean we will never see it (in a scientific sense). No. I am saying that the supernatural is unknowable. I cannot say it exists of something, or nothing, or pink marshmallows. I have no idea. It is unknowable. I believe all things are ultimately knowable. Others believe there are some things that are unknowable, i.e. God and other supernatural beings. I disagree with those who believe in the supernatural. No. They were misclassified because they were not supernatural. We may not have known that till later, but they were misclassified because they were not supernatural. Nothing more. Yes, that is what I said. There is no proof of anything supernatural. Glad to see we agree 100% on something. Not something 'smaller'. If it was simply smaller then perhaps we could one day see it. It is something that by definition can NEVER bee seen or understood. No. Definitely not. You don't seem to be grasping what supernatural means. We can only discover what is natural. Even if we've discovered everything 'natural', we've not touched anything that is supernatural. Therefore, when we know everything we are capable of knowing, we can still make no claims with certainty that god does or does not exist, because we cannot examine the supernatural. While I certainly believe there is no god, I cannot claim with certainty there is no God. It is not possible for me to do so.

Not getting at anything really. Just responding to your statements. Correct. And that is what I and many others believe to be the case. Of course we cannot 'prove' there is no supernatural, because, as I said, the supernatural, not being part of nature, would not be subject to science. Other than the fact that you can feel air, I agree with you. As far as I can tell, no one has claimed the supernatural consists of nothing. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. It seems likely to me that there is absolutely no difference at all. I believe all things are ultimately 'knowable'. In the example you gave previously, you said that there were many things said to be supernatural that were later determined to have a natural explanation. In those cases, they were misclassified. That was very common prior to the age of science and reason. Nowadays there aren't many things other than God that people say are supernatural. The thing about most definitions of God though is that He is supernatural according to the people who believe Him to exist. According to the Christian religion, it is not possible to understand or test God. They are not saying we cannot do it yet. They are saying we cannot do it ever. It is impossible as God is not of this world. And if it is impossible and we cannot do it ever because He is not subject to the laws of nature, then He is supernatural. And if He is supernatural there is no test we can perform to determine if He exists or not.

If they are now explained by science, they were never supernatural, no matter what people called it at the time. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. I'm sure they have.

I assume you mean they can have something to say about people and their belief in God.

If something is 'natural', it is simply part of the physical universe. Both humans and aliens are part of the universe, and thus anything made by us is natural. Supernatural is something that is not part of the physical universe, and by definition, outside the scope of science. Therefore science can have nothing to say about God.

He seemed to be suggesting that there was land that whites exclusively were entitled to inhabit, while people of color were not, based upon the color of their skin. I was also unaware of such land.

As my mother would have said, "this is why we can't have nice things". You give someone a nice benefit of the doubt and they shit all over it.

Can you please explain the "racist bullshit" part? https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats14/minorities.htm

Completely off topic, but my wife had a PhD with only one other degree. It is not necessarily a requirement to get a Masters in order to receive a Doctorate.