We already know that some forms of life can survive indefinitely in space. In fact, if we find life on Mars, it might even be seeded from the earth.
Hugh Ross has been saying for decades that evidence of life will found on Mars and other solar system bodies, detritus blasted up from meteoric or cometic impacts with the earth. That in no way means it is necessarily viable. And transgalactic?! There is more radiation in space than I think your intuition is allowing for.
Why not just interplanetary? Or interstellar? Why jump all the way to intergallactic?
Okay, interstellar is fine. The conditions supporting life are so fine-tuned that it won’t be found in our solar system except as I just descrbed. Interstellar radiation levels are still severe. And how many light years away is the nearest star?
It is not that hard tobe radiation resistant if you are a microbe. Rather than speaking qualitively, produce some data.
I was actually going to suggest that we had evolved from tardigrades.
We do have a common ancestor with tardigrades
Do we? If I recall, the estimated mean time for a meteor to travel from Mars to Earth is in excess of 20 million years. Is that indefinitely enough?
How did we get on this topic?
And there won’t be healthy travel to Mars:
I brought up panspermia as a counter to the claim that “atheist have to believe in abiogenisis” . No we don’t, we don’t have to believe in anything. If you are equating atheists with scientists, then we atheist scientists have many ideas and continue to learn more and more about how life arose on Earth and the universe. Stay tuned. Much is going to be learned.
I absolutely agree.
It isn’t the length that matters. It is the shape and biochemical properties of the protein that matters.
I don’t know if abiogenesis is possible. What I do know is that life started out as very simple organisms and stayed that way for hundreds of millions (billions?) of years which is what we would expect to see if abiogenesis is true.
I choose “I don’t know”. I don’t think you understand how atheism works. It’s not as if all atheists have sworn to disavow belief in God, from now until the end of time. Rather, we just haven’t seen any evidence that would convince us that God exists, but many of us are open to such evidence. Until there is evidence either way, “I don’t know” is the correct position.
The one positive for abiogenesis is that we can actually research it. It is a question that we can tackle with the scientific method.
Panspermia is not a solution, though. It’s merely moving the goalposts. I think what Dale meant by having no choice is that, as with evolution, the only real option is creation. Similarly, if one does not believe that life was “created” by God, the only real alternative is abiogenesis.
It seems as though folks may have understood this comment to be contentious, but I think that Dale was just stating the obvious.
“I don’t know” is another option. You don’t need to know how the universe works or where life came from in order to not believe in God.
I understand where you are coming from. “I don’t know” is not an option in terms of explaining the OOL issue. It is a response, but not an option. The reason why I posted above was that I don’t believe that there was any contempt in saying that those who don’t believe in God (or god) also won’t believe that God (or god) created life. Their sole option is that life created itself.
I don’t see why we need to pick one option if there is no evidence for any of them.
I fully believe that there was no ill will on your part, but there is some misunderstanding. Atheism isn’t the adherence to some sworn oath not to ever believe in God. God creating life is an option for atheists if that is where the evidence leads. Most atheists are atheists because they have yet to see evidence for God, and they will believe in God if such evidence is presented.