In actuality, I would say that we really do not know for shure if there is life or not on the moon. Right now, all we know about life is all that exist on Earth, which are carbon based lifeforms. Remember that we haven't been back to the moon for 30 years. What if there are lifeforms existing on the moon that is based on some other molecule or are so bizarre to our standard that we haven't been able to recognize them yet? For all we know, the moon replaced the real Armstrong with a clone programed to collect info on us Earthlings for the invasion.
But seriously, what if the rocks in the lunar pictures taken by the apollo missions were actually lifeforms on the moon?
If they look and act just like rocks, how would you come to believe they were alive?
Many things on Earth look and act like rocks, dead leaves, tree branches, etc..., yet they would be completely nonexistent to a New Yorker if he takes a 1 day visit in the rain forest of the Amazon.
How do you know your shoe isn't a living thing, by that standard?
Because my shoe has absolutely no characteristic whatsoever that indicates life that I have been able to observe in the 2 years that I have worn it.
There's got to be some minimal criteria for something to be considered "alive." If the rocks were alive, we'd notice.
Yes and no. I am not saying that life exists on the moon. I am simply suggesting that it is still very possible that some kind of life exist on the moon that is so different than life as we know it on Earth for us to recognize it at first glance.
Just think of it this way. I am a commander of the starship sahguoisdhiohsd from the planet hfghifeuwfesdhfggheeaghehsf. I've just arrived in orbit around the 3rd planet of this uninteresting star system. We are preparing to send down a probe to see if there is any life. By the way, all life that I have known are silicone based and live in temperature ranging from 199 to 244 kelvin only. Therefore, my science officer concluded that the most likely places for life to exist would be the poles of this planet. The probe touches down on the a continent occupying the southen tip of the planet. Since the continent shows no sign of life as we know it, I must conclude that this planet has no life. We could only spare 6 hours to survey this planet, so we must go on to explore the 2nd planet of this solar system.
The fact is that the astronauts arrived on the moon, took a few pictures and rock samples, and left very shortly after arriving. Based on the conditions of the lunar environment, it is accurate to say that no life as we know it could exist on the moon. What if life on the moon only exist several miles underground?
This message has been edited by Lam, 06-19-2004 04:38 AM
Usually, definitions of life include metabolism and reproduction. Life should be synonomous with energy, movement, heat exhcnage, similar processes. We would look for those. The moon is so desolate it doesn;t even seem likely that it will have anything like that.
Replies to this message:
Message 21 by Incontrovertible, posted 06-30-2004 7:30 AM
Perhaps your starting assumptions are wrong. You start with the belief that evolution is fact and that life arose from non-life here on Earth. Logically following would be that life spontaneously popped up elsewhere in the universe.
Life has never been observed elsewhere in the universe. Why is it that when the evidence contradicts the theory it’s not the theory that changes?
Reply to: Message 25 by Incontrovertible 07-02-2004 8:41 AM
That's exactly right, Earth is a much larger target, however it has an atmosphere. So even though the moon is smaller, everything that heads for it, impacts.
Our atmosphere helps, but only if the asteroids are small.
The Moon appears to have more craters than the Earth because it has no tectonic plates, water, atmosphere, and everything that Earth has to cover up the scars. You have to remember that the Earth is not frozen in time like the Moon. Earth has a myriad of activities that overtime have covered up much of the scars. If you take away the ocean, for example, you will see that we have just as many, if not more, craters as the moon.
This message is a reply to:
Message 25 by Incontrovertible, posted 07-02-2004 8:41 AM
Life has never been observed elsewhere in the universe.
We've started looking in two places to date: the Moon, where there's no water and a high vacuum, and Mars, where there's precious little surface water and a pretty decent vacuum. And we've only scratched an infinitesimal portion of Mars.
We have yet to look on the trillions of planets with water that we have only now developed the technology to find. And once we find them, it may take just a while to see if there's anything on them....
You start with the belief that evolution is fact and that life arose from non-life here on Earth.
*Sigh* Abiogensis and evolution are two entirely different disciplines.
Logically following would be that life spontaneously popped up elsewhere in the universe.
Logically? I will take your word for it. Please give us the details behind this wonderous logic of yours.
Life has never been observed elsewhere in the universe.
There are an estimated 100 billion stars and a kagillion planets in our galaxy. We have visited the moon, landed probs on Venus and Mars, and taken pictures of Mercury, bodies in the Juvian system, Saturn and its moons, Uranus and its moons, and Neptune and its moons from high orbits. If you only counted the places we actually touched, that's 4 data points out of a possible 100 billion kagillion datapoints.
Let me guess, your next step is to want to claim that god created the universe in 6 days, correct?
Why is it that when the evidence contradicts the theory it’s not the theory that changes?
What evidence? That only 1 out of the 4 data points we have looked at out of a possible 100 billion kagillion contain life? Have you ever taken chemistry or physics in high school? You can't even get a best fit line with only 1 freakin datapoint, and you want to claim that the entire universe is void of life except for Earth?
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!