Building bocks, Chemicals and Life

[We Never Know]

Do you conflate that with a total life expectancy of 10 billion years? All I can find is that there are about 5 billion years left (which gives a total life expectancy of 10 billion together with the 5 that the sun already existed)?

Depends on who you ask.


"Astronomers estimate that the sun has about 7 billion to 8 billion years left before it sputters out and dies. One way or another, humanity may well be long gone by then"

Will the Sun Ever Burn Out?


"The Sun is about 4.6 billion years old – gauged on the age of other objects in the Solar System that formed around the same time. Based on observations of other stars, astronomers predict it will reach the end of its life in about another 10 billion years."

Scientists Figured Out When And How Our Sun Will Die, And It Will Be Epic : ScienceAlert

 

[Heyo]

Depends on who you ask.


"Astronomers estimate that the sun has about 7 billion to 8 billion years left before it sputters out and dies. One way or another, humanity may well be long gone by then"

Will the Sun Ever Burn Out?


"The Sun is about 4.6 billion years old – gauged on the age of other objects in the Solar System that formed around the same time. Based on observations of other stars, astronomers predict it will reach the end of its life in about another 10 billion years."

Scientists Figured Out When And How Our Sun Will Die, And It Will Be Epic : ScienceAlert

OK, now I understand. We were talking about different things. In about 5 billion years (as both of your articles confirm) the sun will leave its main sequence phase and turn into a Red Giant. That's what I was talking about. The Red Giant phase will last from about 2 to 5 billion years before it collapses into a White Dwarf, that's what you were talking about.

 

[Brian2]

I understand that. Point is, you both end in the same place - you both acknowledge that other life might be out there, and neither of you know for sure.

OK

 

[Brian2]

I do not deny the faith of honest theists, but it seems many of them want to accuse others have having faith when they don't. It seems as if they see faiths shortcomings and a Tu Quoque fallacy is the only way that they can feel better about their own beliefs.

So are you accusing me of hypocrisy?
But no it is not about feeling better about my beliefs it is just about pointing out that your beliefs are not scientifically based.
It is frustrating when that is obviously true and you deny it however.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So are you accusing me of hypocrisy?
But no it is not about feeling better about my beliefs it is just about pointing out that your beliefs are not scientifically based.
It is frustrating when that is obviously true and you deny it however.

What beliefs of mine do you think are not scientifically based? I think that you may be using a strawman.

In fact you just acknowledged a correction.

 

[Brian2]

What beliefs of mine do you think are not scientifically based? I think that you may be using a strawman.

In fact you just acknowledged a correction.

You seem to believe that life is chemically based.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to believe that life is chemically based.

And that is a scientifically based idea. You were supposed to find ideas that were not scientifically based.

 

[JIMMY12345]

Being life is(said to be) a chemical reaction, and the building blocks of life are throughout the universe(I say throughout because they have been found in meteors, etc. so we know they don't only exist here), doesn't it stand to reason other life should exist (or should have existed) throughout the universe being there are billions of other galaxies with solar systems with planets in a "goldie locks zone" billions of years older than earth?

Everyone agrees yes.However do not expect Martians with ray guns.We are talking single cell protozoa or the equivalent.
God could also have constructed a multiverse where magical and different life forms exist in other worlds.This is called Heaven and where we could end up if it exists.

 

[Brian2]

And that is a scientifically based idea. You were supposed to find ideas that were not scientifically based.

Science does not proclaim that life is chemically based simply because it can only find chemical evidence. Science can say that life functions through chemistry.
If you say that then you have overstepped what science can legitimately claim imo. It is an opinion of faith and not of science.
Can Science Explain The Origin Of Life? • Stated Clearly

 

[Heyo]

Science does not proclaim that life is chemically based simply because it can only find chemical evidence. Science can say that life functions through chemistry.
If you say that then you have overstepped what science can legitimately claim imo. It is an opinion of faith and not of science.

It is a conclusion based on experiments. Scientists have looked for evidence that life is anything else than chemical and have found nothing. But all scientific theory is preliminary, you can formulate your own hypothesis and devise a test to disprove it. If you fail and other do also, your hypothesis of non-chemical life will become the new theory. Get to work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science does not proclaim that life is chemically based simply because it can only find chemical evidence. Science can say that life functions through chemistry.
If you say that then you have overstepped what science can legitimately claim imo. It is an opinion of faith and not of science.
Can Science Explain The Origin Of Life? • Stated Clearly

What? You seem to have contradicted yourself.

And how does a video for teachers help you? By the title it appears to be on a different but related topic. Abiogenesis is not solved yet, yesterday I heard a biologist estimate that eight out of the ten key problems had been solved, but even so the evidence involved does only confirm to that life is chemical in nature. There does not appear to be any evidence to the contrary right now.

That means that my statement still appears to be scientific.

 

[Brian2]

It is a conclusion based on experiments. Scientists have looked for evidence that life is anything else than chemical and have found nothing. But all scientific theory is preliminary, you can formulate your own hypothesis and devise a test to disprove it. If you fail and other do also, your hypothesis of non-chemical life will become the new theory. Get to work.

Has science invented a test for spirit? No that is the presumption, the naturalistic methodology. All science can do it is test chemicals and see if life (bacterial life) might have been able to come together from what is known chemically. The naturalistic presumption is that life can be explained naturally (as with all of scientific answers) so once it is shown that this can happen then the presumption is that science has shown that life can come about chemically. That is the presumption and there is no proof behind it. No tests for it. No falsification. Just the presumption that we have not found a spirit therefore...................
And even if there is a sticking point in the whole thing and science cannot push past that for 1000 years, it changes nothing. The answer still has to be naturalistic, physical, because that is the presumption even when science knows that it cannot test for spirits.
But atheists claim things of science that science has not done.
I don't have to invent a test for spirits. I am not an atheist who thinks "science and only science".

 

[Brian2]

What? You seem to have contradicted yourself.

And how does a video for teachers help you? By the title it appears to be on a different but related topic. Abiogenesis is not solved yet, yesterday I heard a biologist estimate that eight out of the ten key problems had been solved, but even so the evidence involved does only confirm to that life is chemical in nature. There does not appear to be any evidence to the contrary right now.

That means that my statement still appears to be scientific.

What I said was confusing. Science can say that life functions through chemistry but not that life is chemistry.
The video shows that science is trying to show that life can come about chemically (the hypothesis) but that is has not done that yet.
You speak as if science has already shown that life is chemically based only. We all have our biases and beliefs that are not science based. (well I should not over generalise like that I guess)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has science invented a test for spirit? No that is the presumption, the naturalistic methodology. All science can do it is test chemicals and see if life (bacterial life) might have been able to come together from what is known chemically. The naturalistic presumption is that life can be explained naturally (as with all of scientific answers) so once it is shown that this can happen then the presumption is that science has shown that life can come about chemically. That is the presumption and there is no proof behind it. No tests for it. No falsification. Just the presumption that we have not found a spirit therefore...................
And even if there is a sticking point in the whole thing and science cannot push past that for 1000 years, it changes nothing. The answer still has to be naturalistic, physical, because that is the presumption even when science knows that it cannot test for spirits.
But atheists claim things of science that science has not done.
I don't have to invent a test for spirits. I am not an atheist who thinks "science and only science".

Sure there is a test for life. Take a claimed life form. Put it in its claimed appropriate environment. Observe it.. If it reproduces it is life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I said was confusing. Science can say that life functions through chemistry but not that life is chemistry.
The video shows that science is trying to show that life can come about chemically (the hypothesis) but that is has not done that yet.
You speak as if science has already shown that life is chemically based only. We all have our biases and beliefs that are not science based. (well I should not over generalise like that I guess)

Then you are misinterpreting what others say. Perhaps on purpose. All of the evidence tells us that life is simply a series of chemical reactions. There is no evidence for anything else. A national person will treat life as a series of chemical reactions.

I think the problem may be that you do not understand the concept of the burden of proof.

 

[Brian2]

Then you are misinterpreting what others say. Perhaps on purpose. All of the evidence tells us that life is simply a series of chemical reactions. There is no evidence for anything else. A national person will treat life as a series of chemical reactions.

I think the problem may be that you do not understand the concept of the burden of proof.

With many other questions for science there is no problem with coming up with a natural mechanism for how something operates. When it comes to showing that life is no more than chemicals the naturalistic presumption is not enough. The evidence should be strong to say this. It is not strong enough to invoke the naturalistic methodology and say "we have not found spirit, so spirit does not exist to give life".
"Ghost Busters" was a movie, there aren't tests for ghosts or spirits.
If you want scientific proof, you are asking of science what science cannot give.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With many other questions for science there is no problem with coming up with a natural mechanism for how something operates. When it comes to showing that life is no more than chemicals the naturalistic presumption is not enough. The evidence should be strong to say this. It is not strong enough to invoke the naturalistic methodology and say "we have not found spirit, so spirit does not exist to give life".
"Ghost Busters" was a movie, there aren't tests for ghosts or spirits.
If you want scientific proof, you are asking of science what science cannot give.

Like I said, you do not understand the burden of proof. All of the evidence so far says that it is a chemical process. There is no evidence for anything else. That tells us that the burden of proof is now upon those that claim that there is something else.

 

[Brian2]

Like I said, you do not understand the burden of proof. All of the evidence so far says that it is a chemical process. There is no evidence for anything else. That tells us that the burden of proof is now upon those that claim that there is something else.

No I don't understand that unless I was wanting to show scientifically that we have a spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I don't understand that unless I was wanting to show scientifically that we have a spirit.

Then why complain and make false claims about me not following the science?

 

[Brian2]

Then why complain and make false claims about me not following the science?

You want to follow science when it comes to thinking that the only sort of evidence is evidence that can be used by science.
Then you take science too far and claim things for it that it has not and cannot do.