Microbial life discovered on Saturn's moon Enceladus!

[DeMotts]

Now that I've got your attention... No, we have not discovered microbial life on Enceladus. Sorry, cheap trick.

However! Recent discoveries and observation of cryovolcanoes venting water vapor, molecular hydrogen, and other volatiles into space as well as the detection of escaping heat indicate that Enceladus possesses a large sub-surface ocean of liquid water and is geologically active. Scientists speculate that it is one of the most likely places in the solar system to search for life.

Ok, so imagine if you will that we've constructed a probe and launched it towards Saturn, and it is designed to fly through the ejecta from Enceladus and collect samples and thoroughly scan them for signs of life. And amazingly enough, the probe snags a sample that contains a microbe. It is conclusively proven that the microbe originated from the warm liquid water ocean under the icy surface of Enceladus.

Here's the question:

Theists - What would be your reaction? Does this change your view on the origin of life? Does this change your opinion on the validity of abiogenesis? How does this inform your world view?

Non-theists - What implications does this have for how you see things? Is this, or something like it, simply "expected"? Do you feel like this would strike some sort of a blow against religious world views? Or would you predict denial, conspiracy accusations, and maintenance of the status quo in regards to religious acceptance of scientific explanations for both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial life's origins?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 38 by JP Cusick]

They that reject Faith; they give false charges;

They that reject faith rely on working knowledge instead; working knowledge produces working technology. Faith produces 2,000 years of empty claims.

It just seems odd and absurd that you who claim to be Atheist and you who reject God are hereby going to speak for the great religion of Islam - which you do NOT.

Your interpretations are just expressions of your bigoted hatred and thereby worthless.

First, disagreeing with you is NOT a sign of bigotry and hatred. Many many people in this world believe in things which can be demonstrated to be nothing more than foolish nonsense. I don't hate people for believing in foolish nonsense.

Second, I reject God in exactly the same way I reject Santa Claus. I do not hate, nor am I "against" Santa for never existing in the first place.

Third, Mohammed taught that Jesus, like Muhammad himself, was one of God's special prophets. According to Mohammad Jesus was never crucified, and thus never resurrected from the dead. It is so stated in the Qur'an. The Qur'an was given directly to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel (Gibril). As a result, Muslims believe that it is not merely the "inspired" Word of God, but the direct Word of God. Therefore it is inerrant. To prove the Qur'an wrong would be to prove it to be not the direct Word of God, undermining one of the basic tenets of Islam.

We can learn a lot of truth from the religion of Egypt and from Babylon and from every religion because all of humanity are children of God.

I accept wisdom from any source available.

"Truth" is often a matter of opinion. The admonishment attributed to Jesus for "turning the other cheek" for example. This strategy may or may not work out, depending on the disposition of the attacker. For creatures such as ourselves, who live in societies that operate on the principle of mutual aid and cooperation, advocating methods for getting along with each other has very distinct survival advantages. Advantages that we refer to as wisdom. Most of these methods for seeking to work in mutual cooperation with our fellow society members are perfectly well summed up in the form of the golden rule. It is an obvious solution for attempting to live in harmony with our fellow society members, and a strategy that I have successfully employed my entire life. It's "true" because it works.

Even science and Atheism have truth within them, but as elsewhere the truth is often covered up by human nonsense.

The truth of science is demonstrated in the fact that we are able to even have this conversation in the way that it is occurring. The concept of nonsense revolves around claims which contradict all common observation and common experience. Among the many claims that contradict all common observation and common experience are stories of flying reindeer, and flying reanimated corpses. And of course sometimes observation and experience lead to explanations that actually have nothing to do with what is actually occurring. Lightning flashes were once believed to be the result of God's flashes of anger, and thunder was his mighty booming voice. Because ignorance often leads to belief in nonsense. We live in an age however where natural explanations exist for much of what we commonly experience and observe. And yet people still often reach ignorant conclusions. Ignorance is a natural state for all of us. But it is no longer a necessary state.

I truly do not see finding life as such a big deal, and I see no reason not to expect to find life on the moons or on any planet.

There seems to be the idea that micro life on Saturn's moon means that there is no God and there is no logic to that deduction.

Most biologists feel that life is a natural process which will inevitably arise under the right conditions. Finding forms of life on other bodies would serve to verify this opinion. It will not ultimately serve to prove or disprove the question of the existence of God one way or the other. It might serve to make the concept of God less likely, however.

Humanity on earth is the ultimate invention - and that too is really the ultimate hope of science - to put humans onto other worlds.

Humans are not the ultimate anything. Humans are simply the current things.

In order to truly be in the image of God we humans have to do as God does = create things.

Science is creeping ever closer to the point of understanding the process of life in enough detail to begin to create life from scratch. Creating life from scratch will not serve to make us Gods however.

[JP Cusick]

It was a comment made in direct response to one of your statements in post #9, and again from your last paragraph in post #19. Your claims about the Bible being right in it's claim that man came from dust is scientifically wrong. Since you are attempting to claim that statements in the Bible shows that life on Enceladus would verify your god, it is highly pertinent to the discussion.

How about this - STAR DUST - and yet it is still dust.

"Since stardust atoms are the heavier elements, the percentage of star mass in our body is much more impressive. Most of the hydrogen in our body floats around in the form of water. The human body is about 60% water and hydrogen only accounts for 11% of that water mass. Even though water consists of two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen, hydrogen has much less mass. We can conclude that 93% of the mass in our body is stardust."
Quote from the last paragraph = link HERE.
--------

"For dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return." = Hereby this is scientifically accurate.

It is ridiculous that this needs to be explained.

This quoted above is such a true statement being applied so wrongly.

And yet it must be emphasized by me as correctly applying to you!

"Dust" ... "dust" ... "DUST"

[Tired of the Nonsense]

It was a comment made in direct response to one of your statements in post #9, and again from your last paragraph in post #19. Your claims about the Bible being right in it's claim that man came from dust is scientifically wrong. Since you are attempting to claim that statements in the Bible shows that life on Enceladus would verify your god, it is highly pertinent to the discussion.

How about this - STAR DUST - and yet it is still dust.

"Since stardust atoms are the heavier elements, the percentage of star mass in our body is much more impressive. Most of the hydrogen in our body floats around in the form of water. The human body is about 60% water and hydrogen only accounts for 11% of that water mass. Even though water consists of two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen, hydrogen has much less mass. We can conclude that 93% of the mass in our body is stardust."
Quote from the last paragraph = link HERE.
--------

"For dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return." = Hereby this is scientifically accurate.

It is ridiculous that this needs to be explained.

This quoted above is such a true statement being applied so wrongly.

And yet it must be emphasized by me as correctly applying to you!

"Dust" ... "dust" ... "DUST"

Stars burn up their lighter elements in a process known as thermonuclear fission. The heavier elements are created in stars through a process known as thermonuclear fusion. Stardust is the result of exploding stars sending the heavy elements out into space, where it re-coalesces through the force of gravity into new stars and planets and moons.

Earthly dirt is composed mainly of finely ground up rock, dead stuff, and tiny flakes of poop. When we speak of "dust," we are generally speaking of the lighter elements of dirt. The stuff that is easily blown up into the air. The dust in your house is mainly composed of dead cells which have been sloughed off of the skin, combined with the lighter elements of the dirt from outside; finely ground up rock, dead stuff, and flakes of poop. Remember, all living things excrete. Dirt is filled with excrement. Which is great for the plants.

Ultimately however, stardust and earthly dust is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. At the nuclear level, all matter is made of the same stuff.

[Kenisaw]

It was a comment made in direct response to one of your statements in post #9, and again from your last paragraph in post #19. Your claims about the Bible being right in it's claim that man came from dust is scientifically wrong. Since you are attempting to claim that statements in the Bible shows that life on Enceladus would verify your god, it is highly pertinent to the discussion.

How about this - STAR DUST - and yet it is still dust.

"Since stardust atoms are the heavier elements, the percentage of star mass in our body is much more impressive. Most of the hydrogen in our body floats around in the form of water. The human body is about 60% water and hydrogen only accounts for 11% of that water mass. Even though water consists of two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen, hydrogen has much less mass. We can conclude that 93% of the mass in our body is stardust."
Quote from the last paragraph = link HERE.
--------

"For dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return." = Hereby this is scientifically accurate.

It is ridiculous that this needs to be explained.

This quoted above is such a true statement being applied so wrongly.

And yet it must be emphasized by me as correctly applying to you!

"Dust" ... "dust" ... "DUST"

Interesting. After claiming multiple times it is not pertinent, you engage in the topic once it was shown that is was pertinent because of what you originally stated.

Then you take the word "dust" to mean the same thing whenever it is used, despite the obvious different contexts. Of course altering standard definitions to justify your rationalizations has already been pointed out by others in this thread, so no need to explore that again.

Star "dust" is the heavier elements found in the periodic table. We are talking atoms here. These elements are mostly forged by stars via fusion and/or supernovae explosions.

The "dust" in the Bible is not referring to atoms of course. It is referring to dirt. And since plants get the majority of their biomass (which is not water by the way) from the air, and plants are the energy source for animal life, we can say that animals do not come from "dust". We come from air, including the carbon atoms that were forged in stars that existed before our solar system and now float around as carbon dioxide molecules.

Of course these atoms (the star dust) also show that stars were around before Earth, even though Genesis states that plants came before stars. Fascinating....

[JP Cusick]

Ultimately however, stardust and earthly dust is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. At the nuclear level, all matter is made of the same stuff.

See below - reply to both of you.

The "dust" in the Bible is not referring to atoms of course. It is referring to dirt.

You both are making a big mistake by nit-picking on little words while missing the big picture.

It is insane to fight against the definition of the word "dust" as if your superior position is some how dependent on discrediting that one little word.

In this thread we could really be taking about the dust on Saturn's moon - so is that dust on Saturn's moon the real star dust? or could it be the Bible's dust? or why on earth do you 2 care so much about the dust?

From my view the saying of = dust thou art and to dust thou return - simply means that the human body decays and all that is left is the dust - and I could not care less whatever kind of dust that might be.

If you want to argue and fight then pick your points better than stupid things like nit picking on some words.

In fact - to view people as being made from star dust is far better than just plain old dust, because star dust is like being the children of the stars, which is similar to the old Egypt religion where the Sun God was the Creator. So now science gives us the doctrine that human beings are related (children) of the biggest and brightest of the stars as we are the star dust of super novas, and that is every bit as grand as being children of God.

The same with the word "created" as in the Big Bang created the universe - oh no it can not create no creation can not be that word oh no, and you are just freaking out over the word(s) and that is ridiculous.

I totally accept the science that the dust was really the STAR DUST, so now we know that humans are created from the stars. Woo hoo!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 45 by JP Cusick]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Ultimately however, stardust and earthly dust is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. At the nuclear level, all matter is made of the same stuff.

See below - reply to both of you.
Study
Kenisaw wrote:

The "dust" in the Bible is not referring to atoms of course. It is referring to dirt.

You both are making a big mistake by nit-picking on little words while missing the big picture.

It is insane to fight against the definition of the word "dust" as if your superior position is some how dependent on discrediting that one little word.

In this thread we could really be taking about the dust on Saturn's moon - so is that dust on Saturn's moon the real star dust? or could it be the Bible's dust? or why on earth do you 2 care so much about the dust?

From my view the saying of = dust thou art and to dust thou return - simply means that the human body decays and all that is left is the dust - and I could not care less whatever kind of dust that might be.

I am not certain that I am "fight(ing) against the definition of the word dust." Simply clarifying. The concept of "stardust" is distinctly different from the dust of the ground. Stardust, the remnants of giant exploding stars, would almost certainly be chunks of star material some of which might be the size of mountains. It is a very different concept than the dust of the Earth. Dust on the moon is made up of very finely pulverized rock, the result of meteor strikes on the moon. With no atmosphere to protect it, strikes on the moon happen at very high speeds, causing the rock to become powdered. We can see this from Earth as the lighter colored "rays" that spread out from the impact craters. This dust has NO organic make up however, as the dust of the earth does. Because the moon is devoid of life. And yet stardust, moon dust, and earth dust are made up of protons, neutron and electrons which are entirely interchangeable. So in that sense stardust and earth dust is the same material, simply changed in form over the course of millions of years. Some of this material will go on to form living things, including humans. And then it will become other things yet again.

In fact - to view people as being made from star dust is far better than , because star dust is like being the children of the stars, which is similar to the old Egypt religion where the Sun God was the Creator. So now science gives us the doctrine that human beings are related (children) of the biggest and brightest of the stars as we are the star dust of super novas, and that is every bit as grand as being children of God.

Wikipedia
Composition of the human body
Major, minor and trace elements
Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All 11 are necessary for life. The remaining elements are trace elements, of which more than a dozen are thought on the basis of good evidence to be necessary for life. All of the mass of the trace elements put together (less than 10 grams for a human body) do not add up to the body mass of magnesium, the least common of the 11 non-trace elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositi ... human_body

ASU School of Life Science
What Elements Are Found in the Human Body?

There are 92 elements that occur naturally on Earth. For living things, only 11 of these elements are found in larger than trace quantities. Any amount 0.01% or less is considered a trace element. For vertebrates, such as humans, there are two additional elements that occur in larger than trace amounts these are Iodine and Iron.
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/content/atoms-life

Earth is not nearly massive enough to have produce many of the more complex elements. They were produced in the interiors of very large stars, or during the explosions of very large stars. We refer to this material, somewhat whimsically, as stardust. Of these elements, eleven are necessary for our sort of life. But all of this material, stardust and "just plain old dust," is fundamentally the same stuff at the realm of the atom. All matter is basically composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons, neutrons and electrons are entirely interchangeable. Through hugely powerful forces however, massive gravity or titanic explosions, these protons, neutrons and electrons can be combined into complicated forms of material we call elements. 92 elements are found naturally here on earth, although most were not formed here.

I totally accept the science that the dust was really the STAR DUST, so now we know that humans are created from the stars. Woo hoo!

The stars were necessary to form the elements that are required for life, this is correct. Or you can make up the concept of God and declare that He did it.

[Kenisaw]

Ultimately however, stardust and earthly dust is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. At the nuclear level, all matter is made of the same stuff.

See below - reply to both of you.

The "dust" in the Bible is not referring to atoms of course. It is referring to dirt.

You both are making a big mistake by nit-picking on little words while missing the big picture.

It is insane to fight against the definition of the word "dust" as if your superior position is some how dependent on discrediting that one little word.

Unfortunately for you failed argument, your misuse of one little word completely alters what you are trying to say. Accuracy matters to most people, particularly when they are having a discussion about a topic where multiple viewpoints are being bandied about. By equating Earth dust to "star dust", you've changed the meaning of star dust, and that led to faulty logic in your conclusion.

In this thread we could really be taking about the dust on Saturn's moon - so is that dust on Saturn's moon the real star dust? or could it be the Bible's dust? or why on earth do you 2 care so much about the dust?

I care because you have typed out erroneous information and reached faulty conclusions, and that needs to be noted so that anyone reading this thread is getting the most accurate and reliable information possible. Your misuse of words needed to be corrected.

From my view the saying of = dust thou art and to dust thou return - simply means that the human body decays and all that is left is the dust - and I could not care less whatever kind of dust that might be.

Except you don't come from dust, you come from air. The point is that the Bible, a supposed work of a god creature, can't even get the source of human biomass correct.

If you want to argue and fight then pick your points better than stupid things like nit picking on some words.

If you used words properly I wouldn't need to nitpick. If you used words properly you wouldn't reach faulty conclusions. My original point still stands, it's your attempted rebuttal that is a mess.

In fact - to view people as being made from star dust is far better than just plain old dust, because star dust is like being the children of the stars, which is similar to the old Egypt religion where the Sun God was the Creator. So now science gives us the doctrine that human beings are related (children) of the biggest and brightest of the stars as we are the star dust of super novas, and that is every bit as grand as being children of God.

And stars are entirely natural entities within a natural universe and have limited life spans that do not require magic to exist. Science gives us that doctrine too...

The same with the word "created" as in the Big Bang created the universe - oh no it can not create no creation can not be that word oh no, and you are just freaking out over the word(s) and that is ridiculous.

The Big Bang did not create the universe, it expanded it. But there I go again, freaking out about inaccuracy. Maybe I should just make up things as I go along so that I can shoehorn them into baseless rationalizations a lot easier.

I totally accept the science that the dust was really the STAR DUST, so now we know that humans are created from the stars. Woo hoo!

Which is different than the Bible claims, to no one's great surprise.

[JP Cusick]

If you used words properly I wouldn't need to nitpick. If you used words properly you wouldn't reach faulty conclusions.

"For stardust thou art, and to stardust thou shalt return." ~ Genesis

Link = Physics Central - The human body is made up of stardust:

As it is on earth, so it is in the heavens, and also on the moons of Saturn.

Stardust ~ to infinity and beyond.


............................... ROFL - LOL ...................

[Clownboat]

If you used words properly I wouldn't need to nitpick. If you used words properly you wouldn't reach faulty conclusions.

"For stardust thou art, and to stardust thou shalt return." ~ Genesis

Link = Physics Central - The human body is made up of stardust:

As it is on earth, so it is in the heavens, and also on the moons of Saturn.

Stardust ~ to infinity and beyond.


............................... ROFL - LOL ...................

Dust and Star dust are not the same thing. Yes, I know the word 'dust' being in both is very confusing.

To illustrate, if I told you I was going to go poop in the head, would you really be confused about what I meant?

I can poop in one head and think with the other. Both are heads, so therefore they are the same thing? Like dust and star dust, right?
Of course not!

Words have meanings, let's not abuse them.

[Kenisaw]

If you used words properly I wouldn't need to nitpick. If you used words properly you wouldn't reach faulty conclusions.

"For stardust thou art, and to stardust thou shalt return." ~ Genesis

Link = Physics Central - The human body is made up of stardust:

As it is on earth, so it is in the heavens, and also on the moons of Saturn.

Stardust ~ to infinity and beyond.


............................... ROFL - LOL ...................

I'm glad you have resorted to silliness, it let's me know that the point cannot be contested by you. I look forward to talking to you in the next thread we both post in...