Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Still more on the natural origins of life

The first evidence that some of the basic organic building blocks of life can exist in an Earth-like orbit around a young Sun-like star has been provided by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.

Spitzer took infrared spectrograms of 100 very young stars in a nearby stellar nursery, a huge cloud of dust and gas 375 light years away in the constellation Ophiuchus. And one of those stars showed signs of the organic molecules, acetylene and hydrogen cyanide.

These gases, when combined with water, can form several different amino acids. These are needed to form proteins, as well as one of the four chemical letters, or bases, in DNA, called adenine.

Source:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8507

Yep put there around stars by an intelligent designer: An invisible purple rhinoceros.

Don't really want a discussion on this but your inference is faulty.

If a creator set a universe in motion that was going to spawn life, then why would it be unthinkable that this process would not happen anywhere other than around Sol?

Regards,

Blacknad.

Because the idea of a creator is not related to science at all.

You really shouldn't attack off-the-cuff, sarcastic comments, Blacknad. Why don't you instead engage with the actual science that DA brought to the forum.

Perhaps you are not capable...

Why don't you instead engage with the actual science that DA brought to the forum.

REP: Mainly because I don't have a problem with the science - just with this comment:

'Yep put there around stars by an intelligent designer: An invisible purple rhinoceros.'

Or are you saying that DA can make the comment and I can't respond.

- Because the idea of a creator is not related to science at all.

REP: Couldn't agree more. But of course DA can use the science to infer there is no creator or Intelligent Designer.

The science itself is very interesting.

Perhaps you are not capable...

REP: You're dead right, but that's why this is one of the places I go to learn about such things.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad asks:
"Mainly because I don't have a problem with the science - just with this comment"

Then address the comment directly. There is nothing wrong with my inference. One of the biggest challenges facing science and scientists is explaining to people what is real and what is fantasy and how to tell the difference.

Science clearly indicates a natural explanation. If you agree with that then no need to comment. If, on the other hand you disagree, then you have to also prove the non-existance of my invisible purple rhino.

I won't argue on this point outside of the Origins section - even though you feel the need to bring the Invisible Purple Rhino here.

Regards,

Blacknad.

This has nothing to do with origins. This is basic science built on astronomy and chemistry. You might wish to reread the original article.

About the invisible purple rhino? Oh he's science too. He told me so and so it is written.