The Moon: What is it's purpose?

I guess you can't see how dumb your analogy was, eh? You point to one person out of a billion winning the lottery as if we have a billion Earths and only one has life.

Until you find an Earth-like planet that doesn't harbor life, we are batting 1.000. You brought up the lack of corroborating evidence as if it is damning to my argument, but the only evidence we have is that life forms extremely easily!

You are a moron.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i agree but u have to set a standart as what is presumed life.
There is life on earth that survives where we thought it would be impossible. this cells are called extremofiles. the condicions they survives here allows them to survive Mars, Venus and even Titan (yes even in liquid methane)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm very familiar with extremophiles. I worry that our concept is a bit backwards, however. There are now estimates that the amount of biomass living below the Earth's crust is greater than all of the biomass on its surface. Some organisms have been discovered with metabolisms so slow that they hardly change over hundreds of years, and reproduce over centuries. It is because their environment is so extremely stable and with little competition.

A lecturer for The Teaching Company on the origin of life posited that it is WE that are extremophiles, living in a caustic, oxygen-rich environment and bathed in steady radiation with massive swings in temperature and weather. It is a novel framework and an interesting point of view to ponder.

And I would not be surprised if there are replicating chemical compounds somewhere else in our solar system. On Titan, perhaps. Or even on the heavily-volcanic moon Io. Martian ice is also a possibility, but I wouldn't bet the bank on it.

What I do know is that we didn't come from Adam and Eve. Or a creator that would qualify as even quasi-intelligent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I'm only able to see how dumb you are, because apparently you're too stupid to realize that "batting 1.000" is a meaningless statistic when a player has only been at bat one time. I pointed to the lottery as an example of how a person who "wins" can't know whether or not he was lucky unless he's able to observe how often others win...but I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that you weren't able to follow along, since apparently you think that if a new baseball player hits a home run his first time at bat it's good statistical evidence that he will commonly hit home runs.

 

The apple falls to the earth. i should add - except when they are in a body of water.

A little more detail would be nice though.

 

Earth is between the sun and the moon. While the sun is further away but of greater gravitational consequence the moon is much closer. The effects on the lithosphere are clear. I agree that it has a massive effect but not on the tilt of the planet.

 

That is blatantly missrepresenting time and example.
"Life forms really easily"
In your dreams perhaps. There is not one recorded observance of life forming from lifelessnes.

I believe Nasor put you propperly in your place with the very well said post above.
What is it with you and the insults?
Do you have family issues?

 

*looks around*

Yeah there is.

What we don't have is any recorded observance that life came from other life, which doesn't even make sense as a hypothesis.

 

Oh. When the guy who only comes to bat once hits it out of the park, your conclusion is that it was luck? That the next million times the dude will strike out?

You may be a genius, who am I to know... but your statements in this thread are retarded. Now you are just arguing because you have made yourself look like a fool and so you cling to your original (retarded) comment out of anger and frustration.

I apologize for making you look stupid, I hope you will forgive me.

 

None.

Sorry if this reply is already posted. I have not ready thread with such a dumb question. "Purpose" requires a planned creation or useful variration that has evolved. The moon has neither.

 

maybe you should read the thread first.

 

No, I never said that – I’m saying that you can’t draw any conclusions one way of the other. Maybe he's a great player, or maybe he just got lucky; you can’t know until you observe him at bat more times. Although I guess by this point I shouldn’t be too shocked by your lack of reading comprehension.

You, on the other hand, are making the retarded claim that you can determine how likely something is when you have only tested it once.

Right. It's retarded to think that you can't know how likely something is when your sample size is one. I guess I'll have to go tell my statistics teacher how retarded he was to teach me that, and probably let the guy who wrote my textbook know that he's a retard as well.

Based on your attempts to argue with me so far, I'm not convinced that you even understand what I've been saying.

I will leave it up to the other posters here to decide which of us looks stupid.

 

The only thing on record is that life does come from life.

 

This was a rather foolish offering. It's been done......from 22,000'.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071076/posts

 

Picky, picky, picky. Will you volunteer to replicate Magee's stunt, or any of the other survivors of various freefall accidents?

I'll rephrase my statement:
But if you don't believe me, you can jump out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute and nothing to slow you down before you hit a flat concrete parking lot. If you survive the landing, the chances are that our theories of gravitation are wrong.

 

It is also clearly on record that life comes from non-life. Unless you are asserting that life existed before the Big Bang? And was present before the Earth accreted in our solar system? :bugeye:

Scientists have a clear picture of how common chemical reactions can lead to self-replicating ones. And how these could lead to more complex ones. The origin of life isn't the big mystery it was 50 years ago. Every discovery keeps demonstrating how simple the process is, and in how many brutal niches life can thrive.

Again, all evidence points to life arriving from a ball of rock that had no life, even when we grant that some of the building-blocks are present in interstellar space, and could have assisted the process by "seeding". The only way to doubt this is to believe that an invisible being for which there is NO evidence. Seems like a clear choice to me.


I laughed at the coin-flipping analogy above. Coins have two sides, either of which are more stable than the rim. We know that the flipping process is chaotic enough to make the resting side roughly a chance of 50/50. Thinking that life forming/life not forming is also a 50/50 game because there are two options is asinine. The only way to know what the percentages are is to have a large sample of Earths and count how many harbor life. Since we are batting 1.000, we are left with that percentage until our sample increases. It is humorous that our bias includes the obvious fact that life can only notice it is on a planet that harbors life BECAUSE it is on a planet that harbors life, but that doesn't change the conclusion. This theory is also supported by thousands of laboratory experiments. There is not a sober biologists alive today who thinks that life doesn't form much more easily than we ever thought possible.

 

I think more likely should this unlikely event occur is that the contractor who made the parking lot bribed the construction inspectors and covered a mud suspension lake with a thin film of light weight (foam like) concrete.