PDA

View Full Version : OT-NASA to Make "Astrobiology Announcement" Today...Proof of Life?


epicSocialism4tw
12-02-2010, 04:37 AM
'Life as we don't know it' discovery could prove existence of aliens
NASA has sent the internet into a frenzy after it announced an "astrobiology finding" that could suggest alien life exists – even on earth."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8174040/Life-as-we-dont-know-it-discovery-could-prove-existence-of-aliens.html

Rock Chalk
12-02-2010, 05:20 AM
Awesome.

Gort
12-02-2010, 05:36 AM
this usually happens when NASA is seeking more funding.

yawn.

BroncsRule
12-02-2010, 06:15 AM
It's not even "Astro Biology" - It's a microbe they found at the bottom of a lake in Cali.

Pond scum.

At the bottom of a lake!

Amazing!

Our Tax Dollars At Work!

epicSocialism4tw
12-02-2010, 06:29 AM
It's not even "Astro Biology" - It's a microbe they found at the bottom of a lake in Cali.

Pond scum.

At the bottom of a lake!

Amazing!

Our Tax Dollars At Work!

Astrobiology includes the earth as well.

Dr. Broncenstein
12-02-2010, 06:38 AM
Mars, biatches.

orinjkrush
12-02-2010, 07:06 AM
cellular activity based on arsenic? sheesh, they found my ex-wife. always wondered where that scum went.

Man-Goblin
12-02-2010, 07:13 AM
Hillis?

Jesterhole
12-02-2010, 07:34 AM
Naw, it's all hyperbolic to gain attention. Rumor is they've done test that show life is possible with a arsenic base rather than a carbon one. Big whoop-di-doo...

Gort
12-02-2010, 07:49 AM
It's a microbe they found at the bottom of a lake in Cali.

maybe it's a muslim microbe.

http://www.space.com/news/nasa-chief-muslim-remarks-controversy-ft-100707.html

bronco militia
12-02-2010, 08:02 AM
http://utterlyboring.com/archives/yankeegohome.jpg

Rock Chalk
12-02-2010, 08:09 AM
Naw, it's all hyperbolic to gain attention. Rumor is they've done test that show life is possible with a arsenic base rather than a carbon one. Big whoop-di-doo...

That is a big whoop-di-doo. ALL life known is based on Carbon and if Life can be based on another element, such as Arsenic or Silicon, then our definition of what life is has to change and how we go about looking for it on other worlds.

Smiling Assassin27
12-02-2010, 08:16 AM
I KNEW they'd find Narnians eventually.

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/images/395.jpg

Broncomutt
12-02-2010, 08:56 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DI9ImScQGAo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DI9ImScQGAo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Kaylore
12-02-2010, 09:01 AM
It will likely be something to the effect of "potential for life in other variations is possible" rather than actually finding life.

Taco John
12-02-2010, 09:08 AM
This is like your brother telling you he found well scrambled porn on the satellite dish. I want to see robot aliens discovered, not possibilities that someone might someday do it, theoretically.

Houshyamama
12-02-2010, 09:16 AM
That is a big whoop-di-doo. ALL life known is based on Carbon and if Life can be based on another element, such as Arsenic or Silicon, then our definition of what life is has to change and how we go about looking for it on other worlds.

Exactly. Going from carbon to arsenic isn't like changing your shirt. If it actually IS arsenic based all the way down... it's proteins, DNA and such... it would HAVE to be alien. Or a remnant from billions of years ago.

HAT
12-02-2010, 09:30 AM
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/4/2010/11/a773c22ecaff9c9617bb99ad4c094936/340x.jpg

bronco militia
12-02-2010, 10:03 AM
This is like your brother telling you he found well scrambled porn on the satellite dish. I want to see robot aliens discovered, not possibilities that someone might someday do it, theoretically.

LOL...perfect

TheReverend
12-02-2010, 10:17 AM
OMG THERES AN ALIEN BASE ON THE MOON!?!?!?!?

Runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

epicSocialism4tw
12-02-2010, 12:53 PM
Exactly. Going from carbon to arsenic isn't like changing your shirt. If it actually IS arsenic based all the way down... it's proteins, DNA and such... it would HAVE to be alien. Or a remnant from billions of years ago.

Yep. Arsenic based life would have evolved concurrent with Carbon-based life.

It is a major step, and would be a huge resource in our understanding of biology in all respects.

Mr. Elway
12-02-2010, 01:11 PM
So long as they are documented and paying taxes I don't care.

Houshyamama
12-02-2010, 01:24 PM
It appears that the bacteria can swap phosphorus for arsenic. Very cool but not as interesting as I'd hoped.

A level headed article:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/02/mono-lake-bacteria-build-their-dna-using-arsenic-and-no-this-isnt-about-aliens/

Nor do the bacteria belong to a second branch of life on Earth – the so-called “shadow biosphere” that Wolfe-Simon talked about a year ago. When she studied the genes of these arsenic-lovers, she found that they belong to a group called the Oceanospirillales. They are no stranger to difficult diets. Bacteria from the same order are munching away at the oil that was spilled into the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year. The arsenic-based bacteria aren’t a parallel branch of life; they’re very much part of the same tree that the rest of us belong too.

epicSocialism4tw
12-02-2010, 01:25 PM
So long as they are documented and paying taxes I don't care.

Ha!

I dont know if Obama can fit them under the umbrella of Cap & Tax regulation though, since they dont have nervous systems. They do probably emit toxic substances though if they process Arsenic.

Rohirrim
12-02-2010, 01:26 PM
Given there are billions of stars in the universe and probably trillions of planets, the idea that life doesn't exist elsewhere is mathematically ridiculous.

epicSocialism4tw
12-02-2010, 01:33 PM
Given there are billions of stars in the universe and probably trillions of planets, the idea that life doesn't exist elsewhere is mathematically ridiculous.

It does seem inevitable that we will find it.

But its like with God...the most obvious truths that support the idea that life exists elsewhere in the universe may be part of our conscious life in such a deeply ingrained way that we dont have the collective ability to have perspective enough to see it. We may be living unaware of how we are saturated to the core with those truths all the time and just dont know it.

Thats what was interesting about this study.

Bronco Yoda
12-02-2010, 01:34 PM
The Sumarians informed us of this how many eons ago?

Houshyamama
12-02-2010, 01:38 PM
the sumarians informed us of this how many eons ago?

7.3

Tombstone RJ
12-02-2010, 02:28 PM
this usually happens when NASA is seeking more funding.

yawn.

:rofl:

Tombstone RJ
12-02-2010, 02:39 PM
Exactly. Going from carbon to arsenic isn't like changing your shirt. If it actually IS arsenic based all the way down... it's proteins, DNA and such... it would HAVE to be alien. Or a remnant from billions of years ago.

If we assume that life (all life) is based on carbon, is that not a huge assumption to begin with?

This is what kinda ticks me off about much of our esteemed scientific community. Some of them try to prove things based on pre-existing assumptions instead of simply looking at the data for what it is, data. It adds to the overall picture. We can't assume all life is based on carbon. All we know is that our life, or the life on Earth, is mainly based on carbon (and water and light). To take this recipe (or set of parameters) and forcast it over the entire universe is simply short sighted. JMHO.

Smiling Assassin27
12-02-2010, 02:41 PM
They do probably emit toxic substances though if they process Arsenic.

So does Vladimir Putin.

Smiling Assassin27
12-02-2010, 02:48 PM
If we assume that life (all life) is based on carbon, is that not a huge assumption to begin with?

This is what kinda ticks me off about much of our esteemed scientific community. Some of them try to prove things based on pre-existing assumptions instead of simply looking at the data for what it is, data. It adds to the overall picture. We can't assume all life is based on carbon. All we know is that our life, or the life on Earth, is mainly based on carbon (and water and light). To take this recipe (or set of parameters) and forcast it over the entire universe is simply short sighted. JMHO.


I concur. While a certain set of assumptions are usually integral to a scientific experiment, if you assume too much, too little, or just flat out assume wrongly, the data become suspect.

The prospects are kinda cool, though. (What may be) an earth-based life form that might be able to alter the core of its own DNA structure in order to adapt to a loss of some component. Then again, maybe not. Thanks NASA. Go see if Richard Branson wants to contribute, I'm all tapped out.

Houshyamama
12-02-2010, 03:03 PM
If we assume that life (all life) is based on carbon, is that not a huge assumption to begin with?

This is what kinda ticks me off about much of our esteemed scientific community. Some of them try to prove things based on pre-existing assumptions instead of simply looking at the data for what it is, data. It adds to the overall picture. We can't assume all life is based on carbon. All we know is that our life, or the life on Earth, is mainly based on carbon (and water and light). To take this recipe (or set of parameters) and forcast it over the entire universe is simply short sighted. JMHO.

I hear what you're saying. This "new" organism is still carbon based however, it only incorporates some arsenic into it's DNA structure where phosphorus had gone previously. Phosphorus plays a central role in what you could call the "backbone" of the DNA structure:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/images/dna2.gif

Because the bacteria have been secluded in a place where arsenic levels were high for a very long period of time, they have evolved to replace phosphorus with arsenic (which is similar chemically) in order to either gain a competitive advantage over other strains of bacteria, or to survive in areas where arsenic levels were so high that phosphorus based DNA chemistry became infeasible.

This bacteria is still extremely closely related to other prokaryotes and it's genetics can be traced. It is not an alternative to a carbon based life form.

I'm not saying that there aren't other forms of life, I love to think about how other forms of life could exist. I'm just saying that EVERY single scrap of life we've come across was carbon based, and had DNA (or RNA if you're a virus and consider yourself alive). This organism, amazing as it is, is no different.

Gort
12-02-2010, 03:06 PM
It does seem inevitable that we will find it.

But its like with God...the most obvious truths that support the idea that life exists elsewhere in the universe may be part of our conscious life in such a deeply ingrained way that we dont have the collective ability to have perspective enough to see it. We may be living unaware of how we are saturated to the core with those truths all the time and just dont know it.

Thats what was interesting about this study.

there's no reason... none... zip... nada... zilch... to think that there is life anywhere in the universe off the earth. we've not found it anywhere else. we have no evidence of it anywhere else. none whatsoever.

the only reason one could believe in life elsewhere is if one take a leap of faith, which is precisely the argument used against religion.

you can't make probability arguments in favor of it either. life has never been shown to be a random process, so the mathematics of probability shed no light on the answer.

we've been inundated with pop culture stories about space travel for 60-70 years now, and its under those conditions that many people have become amenable to the idea that extraterrestrial life is out there. but there's no evidence for it. it's just part of the culture that we've grown up with, and are therefore accepting as a postulate of the universe.

think of it this way. if i flip a coin 99 times and it always comes up heads. and then i show you that the coin really is 2-sided and there is no bias involved in the flipping of the coin. if i then ask you whether the next flip is more likely to be heads or tails, alot of people would say that heads is more likely (simply because of past trends) and alot of other people would say tails is "due". the correct answer is that neither is more likely than the other. the coin has no memory. past outcomes do no affect future outcomes. that's the definition of a random process.

just because our sun has life on 1 of 9 planets in its solar system, alot of people assume that a universe with 200 sextillion stars therefore MUST have life everywhere. that's a fallacy. unless life truly is a random process, the number of planets in the universe has nothing to do with whether or not extraterrestrial life exists.

until one can show that life springs out of a petry dish as a random process simply by combining the right chemical components, then we really can't know if life exists or is even likely elsewhere. that would require a leap of faith.

now perhaps you believe that the universe has been seeded by some higher race of beings. if life isn't a random accident, then that could account for life being found throughout the universe. however, we have no evidence for that either. in summary, today's announcement by NASA doesn't really amount to much of anything. it reinforces some false notions in pop culture and warms the hearts of some people who desperately want there to be life elsewhere out there, but nothing more than that.

i think the human race will disappear long before we ever find the answer to the question. the universe is a big, big place and the earth is located on a nondescript arm of an unremarkable galaxy in a forgotten corner of the universe. if alien races exist and are travelling the cosmos at the same time the human race is existant, there's little reason for them to investigate our neighborhood looking for us.

underrated29
12-02-2010, 03:08 PM
Anyone else thinking of the movie "Evolution" right about now?

Houshyamama
12-02-2010, 03:12 PM
there's no reason... none... zip... nada... zilch... to think that there is life anywhere in the universe off the earth. we've not found it anywhere else. we have no evidence of it anywhere else. none whatsoever.

the only reason one could believe in life elsewhere is if one take a leap of faith, which is precisely the argument used against religion.

you can't make probability arguments in favor of it either. life has never been shown to be a random process, so the mathematics of probability shed no light on the answer.

we've been inundated with pop culture stories about space travel for 60-70 years now, and its under those conditions that many people have become amenable to the idea that extraterrestrial life is out there. but there's no evidence for it. it's just part of the culture that we've grown up with, and are therefore accepting as a postulate of the universe.

think of it this way. if i flip a coin 99 times and it always comes up heads. and then i show you that the coin really is 2-sided and there is no bias involved in the flipping of the coin. if i then ask you whether the next flip is more likely to be heads or tails, alot of people would say that heads is more likely (simply because of past trends) and alot of other people would say tails is "due". the correct answer is that neither is more likely than the other. the coin has no memory. past outcomes do no affect future outcomes. that's the definition of a random process.

just because our sun has life on 1 of 9 planets in its solar system, alot of people assume that a universe with 200 sextillion stars therefore MUST have life everywhere. that's a fallacy. unless life truly is a random process, the number of planets in the universe has nothing to do with whether or not extraterrestrial life exists.

until one can show that life springs out of a petry dish as a random process simply by combining the right chemical components, then we really can't know if life exists or is even likely elsewhere. that would require a leap of faith.

now perhaps you believe that the universe has been seeded by some higher race of beings. if life isn't a random accident, then that could account for life being found throughout the universe. however, we have no evidence for that either. in summary, today's announcement by NASA doesn't really amount to much of anything. it reinforces some false notions in pop culture and warms the hearts of some people who desperately want there to be life elsewhere out there, but nothing more than that.

i think the human race will disappear long before we ever find the answer to the question. the universe is a big, big place and the earth is located on a nondescript arm of an unremarkable galaxy in a forgotten corner of the universe. if alien races exist and are travelling the cosmos at the same time the human race is existant, there's little reason for them to investigate our neighborhood looking for us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Gort
12-02-2010, 03:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

not life though.

much like a cinder block in a house's foundation is not a house.

Houshyamama
12-02-2010, 03:14 PM
not life though.

much like a cinder block in a house's foundation is not a house.

What is life?

Gort
12-02-2010, 03:18 PM
What is life?

that's the point, isn't it?

can you make "life" in a petry dish? or is life something more than the sum of the chemical parts?

Houshyamama
12-02-2010, 03:21 PM
that's the point, isn't it?

can you make "life" in a petry dish? or is life something more than the sum of the chemical parts?

What is your opinion on a self-replicating polypeptide enclosed in a bi-lipid layer? Would that be considered life?

edit: The fact that Bill Murray is arguing with himself is awesome.

That One Guy
12-02-2010, 03:28 PM
What is your opinion on a self-replicating polypeptide enclosed in a bi-lipid layer? Would that be considered life?

edit: The fact that Bill Murray is arguing with himself is awesome.

Nerd fight!!!

(And :rofl: on the dual Bill Murray fight)

broncosteven
12-02-2010, 03:30 PM
'Life as we don't know it' discovery could prove existence of aliens
NASA has sent the internet into a frenzy after it announced an "astrobiology finding" that could suggest alien life exists – even on earth."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8174040/Life-as-we-dont-know-it-discovery-could-prove-existence-of-aliens.html

I think there is life in our own solar system:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-399&cid=release_2010-399

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-402&cid=release_2010-402

broncosteven
12-02-2010, 03:34 PM
OMG THERES AN ALIEN BASE ON THE MOON!?!?!?!?

Runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

What are all those black rectangles covering Jupiter doing?

SonOfLe-loLang
12-02-2010, 03:43 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_uOwVg2B79E?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_uOwVg2B79E?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

2KBack
12-02-2010, 04:09 PM
there's no reason... none... zip... nada... zilch... to think that there is life anywhere in the universe off the earth. we've not found it anywhere else. we have no evidence of it anywhere else. none whatsoever.

the only reason one could believe in life elsewhere is if one take a leap of faith, which is precisely the argument used against religion.

you can't make probability arguments in favor of it either. life has never been shown to be a random process, so the mathematics of probability shed no light on the answer.

we've been inundated with pop culture stories about space travel for 60-70 years now, and its under those conditions that many people have become amenable to the idea that extraterrestrial life is out there. but there's no evidence for it. it's just part of the culture that we've grown up with, and are therefore accepting as a postulate of the universe.

think of it this way. if i flip a coin 99 times and it always comes up heads. and then i show you that the coin really is 2-sided and there is no bias involved in the flipping of the coin. if i then ask you whether the next flip is more likely to be heads or tails, alot of people would say that heads is more likely (simply because of past trends) and alot of other people would say tails is "due". the correct answer is that neither is more likely than the other. the coin has no memory. past outcomes do no affect future outcomes. that's the definition of a random process.

just because our sun has life on 1 of 9 planets in its solar system, alot of people assume that a universe with 200 sextillion stars therefore MUST have life everywhere. that's a fallacy. unless life truly is a random process, the number of planets in the universe has nothing to do with whether or not extraterrestrial life exists.

until one can show that life springs out of a petry dish as a random process simply by combining the right chemical components, then we really can't know if life exists or is even likely elsewhere. that would require a leap of faith.

now perhaps you believe that the universe has been seeded by some higher race of beings. if life isn't a random accident, then that could account for life being found throughout the universe. however, we have no evidence for that either. in summary, today's announcement by NASA doesn't really amount to much of anything. it reinforces some false notions in pop culture and warms the hearts of some people who desperately want there to be life elsewhere out there, but nothing more than that.

i think the human race will disappear long before we ever find the answer to the question. the universe is a big, big place and the earth is located on a nondescript arm of an unremarkable galaxy in a forgotten corner of the universe. if alien races exist and are travelling the cosmos at the same time the human race is existant, there's little reason for them to investigate our neighborhood looking for us.

We I guess we should all stop looking then. Absence of evidence is surely evidence of absence

Houshyamama
12-02-2010, 04:28 PM
No more debate? :thumbsdow

gyldenlove
12-02-2010, 05:48 PM
there's no reason... none... zip... nada... zilch... to think that there is life anywhere in the universe off the earth. we've not found it anywhere else. we have no evidence of it anywhere else. none whatsoever.

the only reason one could believe in life elsewhere is if one take a leap of faith, which is precisely the argument used against religion.

you can't make probability arguments in favor of it either. life has never been shown to be a random process, so the mathematics of probability shed no light on the answer.

we've been inundated with pop culture stories about space travel for 60-70 years now, and its under those conditions that many people have become amenable to the idea that extraterrestrial life is out there. but there's no evidence for it. it's just part of the culture that we've grown up with, and are therefore accepting as a postulate of the universe.

think of it this way. if i flip a coin 99 times and it always comes up heads. and then i show you that the coin really is 2-sided and there is no bias involved in the flipping of the coin. if i then ask you whether the next flip is more likely to be heads or tails, alot of people would say that heads is more likely (simply because of past trends) and alot of other people would say tails is "due". the correct answer is that neither is more likely than the other. the coin has no memory. past outcomes do no affect future outcomes. that's the definition of a random process.

just because our sun has life on 1 of 9 planets in its solar system, alot of people assume that a universe with 200 sextillion stars therefore MUST have life everywhere. that's a fallacy. unless life truly is a random process, the number of planets in the universe has nothing to do with whether or not extraterrestrial life exists.

until one can show that life springs out of a petry dish as a random process simply by combining the right chemical components, then we really can't know if life exists or is even likely elsewhere. that would require a leap of faith.

now perhaps you believe that the universe has been seeded by some higher race of beings. if life isn't a random accident, then that could account for life being found throughout the universe. however, we have no evidence for that either. in summary, today's announcement by NASA doesn't really amount to much of anything. it reinforces some false notions in pop culture and warms the hearts of some people who desperately want there to be life elsewhere out there, but nothing more than that.

i think the human race will disappear long before we ever find the answer to the question. the universe is a big, big place and the earth is located on a nondescript arm of an unremarkable galaxy in a forgotten corner of the universe. if alien races exist and are travelling the cosmos at the same time the human race is existant, there's little reason for them to investigate our neighborhood looking for us.

Given that we have only had radio technology sensitive enough to even remotely be able to detect signals from outside our own atmosphere for about 30 years and given that the amount of star systems inside a 30 lightyear radius is less than 200. So it would be extremely unreasonable to expect us to have found life outside this planet, given that the region of space we would have had time to get in contact with is so miniscule.

We can consider that the probability that life developed on an earth like planet is greater than 0, we know this because life developed on this planet.

Given enough trials any non-zero probability will yield multiple successes, assuming that 1/100 stars can support an earth like planet (rate is arbitrarily but conservatively estimated), and the number of stars guessed to exist this still gives a high number of trials. So the probability of life forming at some point during the lifespan of a planet would have to be somewhere on the order <10^-20 to give less than 50% chance of life existing elsewhere.

Gort
12-02-2010, 06:06 PM
Given that we have only had radio technology sensitive enough to even remotely be able to detect signals from outside our own atmosphere for about 30 years and given that the amount of star systems inside a 30 lightyear radius is less than 200. So it would be extremely unreasonable to expect us to have found life outside this planet, given that the region of space we would have had time to get in contact with is so miniscule.

We can consider that the probability that life developed on an earth like planet is greater than 0, we know this because life developed on this planet.

Given enough trials any non-zero probability will yield multiple successes, assuming that 1/100 stars can support an earth like planet (rate is arbitrarily but conservatively estimated), and the number of stars guessed to exist this still gives a high number of trials. So the probability of life forming at some point during the lifespan of a planet would have to be somewhere on the order <10^-20 to give less than 50% chance of life existing elsewhere.

all based on the assumption that life doesn't need a "divine spark" of some sort. i don't know what the answer is... i believe some things to be true about "life", but i can't prove those beliefs to you or anyone else... and this is why everyone should be careful making assertions that life exists out there simply because the universe is so vast. the big assumption you're making must be true for that conclusion, but i don't know it to be true. do you?

also, let's say life is out there. let's say 10,000 l.y. from here is a race/species capable of space travel. that's a next door neighbor considering the size of the universe. but they won't pick up any transmissions of "I Love Lucy" for another 100 centuries. by then, who knows if we'll still be around? or if they'll still be around. even if there is life out there... intelligent, curious life... with technology capable of detecting our presence and attempting to visit us, it may be a long, long time before they know we were here, much less ever get here for a visit. the size and emptiness of the universe almost certainly guarantees that human race will lead a solitary existence.

Gort
12-02-2010, 06:09 PM
No more debate? :thumbsdow

i'll come back to it. very busy tonight with other things though.

i'm not opposed to the idea that there is life out there. maybe even intelligent life. it doesn't necessarily invalidate any religious beliefs that i may have.

but i require proof. and sound arguments. not wishful speculation by science fiction writers.

we just don't have any evidence whatsoever. in the absence of evidence, this is really no different than discussing the likelihood of the existence of the tooth fairy or leprechauns.

Gort
12-02-2010, 06:13 PM
We I guess we should all stop looking then. Absence of evidence is surely evidence of absence

by all means, keep looking.

if somebody else is out there, they might just take notice of us.

that might not be a good thing.

http://www.onlygoodmovies.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/to-serve-man.jpg

Archer81
12-02-2010, 06:14 PM
They fight over black, white, brown and yellow. We purple, what the **** you think they are gonna do to us? -Eddie Griffin on aliens.


:Broncos:

orinjkrush
12-02-2010, 06:15 PM
as Pontius Pilate might have said: "What is proof?"

we may wake up someday to find out pulsars are not natural but rather navigation beacons.

Popps
12-02-2010, 06:16 PM
Funny term I didn't know existed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_chauvinism

gyldenlove
12-02-2010, 06:17 PM
all based on the assumption that life doesn't need a "divine spark" of some sort. i don't know what the answer is... i believe some things to be true about "life", but i can't prove those beliefs to you or anyone else... and this is why everyone should be careful making assertions that life exists out there simply because the universe is so vast. the big assumption you're making must be true for that conclusion, but i don't know it to be true. do you?

also, let's say life is out there. let's say 10,000 l.y. from here is a race/species capable of space travel. that's a next door neighbor considering the size of the universe. but they won't pick up any transmissions of "I Love Lucy" for another 100 centuries. by then, who knows if we'll still be around? or if they'll still be around. even if there is life out there... intelligent, curious life... with technology capable of detecting our presence and attempting to visit us, it may be a long, long time before they know we were here, much less ever get here for a visit. the size and emptiness of the universe almost certainly guarantees that human race will lead a solitary existence.

I would rather stick to assumptions that do not require supernatural intervention, but that is a personal preference.

There seem to be only 2 ways for civilizations to ever have evidence of not being alone. 1, one civilization exists long after the other, thus giving signals time to travel great distance. 2, one civilization breaking local confiment and exploring at the very least a significant fraction of a galaxy - this could be achieved by building interstellar space ships large enough to carry a colony and travelling at significant speed, maybe 1% of lightspeed, the colony would then at some point land, terraform and mine a new planet, starting a 2nd colony etc, some estimates show that through this process the entire galaxy could be explored in a few million years which given the age of the galaxy is not that bad.

Gort
12-02-2010, 06:25 PM
I would rather stick to assumptions that do not require supernatural intervention, but that is a personal preference.

There seem to be only 2 ways for civilizations to ever have evidence of not being alone. 1, one civilization exists long after the other, thus giving signals time to travel great distance. 2, one civilization breaking local confiment and exploring at the very least a significant fraction of a galaxy - this could be achieved by building interstellar space ships large enough to carry a colony and travelling at significant speed, maybe 1% of lightspeed, the colony would then at some point land, terraform and mine a new planet, starting a 2nd colony etc, some estimates show that through this process the entire galaxy could be explored in a few million years which given the age of the galaxy is not that bad.

a "divine spark" in quotes isn't necessarily supernatural. maybe God is just an advanced being or beings from elsewhere in the universe. i don't know. my point isn't about the actor anyway... it's about the action. what is needed to bring chemical compounds to life? mankind does not have an answer or even understanding of that. and that's just for the most simple sorts of lifeforms... what about advanced, intelligent life?

all of this is a very interesting discussion for sitting at a bar somewhere. but we need alot more info about alot more things before we can attempt to understand the nature of the universe and our place in it.

to be honest, i'm more interested in where our species is going in the next 500 years. forget the rest of the universe, i'd like to know what problems we've solved and how our technology has advanced by 2500. in some ways, i regret being born when i was. we've only been teased by what's coming... a couple of moon landings, deep submicron semiconductor technology, mapping of the genome, etc. i'd like to see where we are able to go (technologically) with such building blocks.

atomicbloke
12-02-2010, 06:58 PM
The title is a bit misleading and sensationalist.

They did not find a new life form. They just experimentally proved that it is possible to conceive life out of non-carbon based forms.


It is NOT non-Carbon based life. That sort of discovery would be HUGE.

This is just evidence that P can be replaced with As. It's like, "Hey, lets use a stack instead of a queue here.".

Non C- based life has been hypothesized but its also highly improbable.

C is the shizzle! C deserves respect. There are very few elements on the periodic table that can do what C does.

C has a nice geometrically and energy-balanced structure, a beautiful valency of 4 and an ability to form nice long stable chains.

Assisted by the super light and well behaved H, together they provide the "paper" to write the "equations and code" of life into. (Long hydrocarbons--> organic molecules--> amino acids--> DNA)
Its not too atomically heavy and cumbersome. Yet, it is not too light to be frisked away into other molecules.

C is also very abundant in the universe. It is regularly manufactured by fusion in supernovas and dying stars, throughout the universe.

Si has some of these abilities as well, (chaining to form silicones) and is the next likely candidate for providing the possibility of life forming substrates. Still, far less abundant in the Universe and not nearly as stable as C.

One current branch of opinion is that even on other planets, C's characteristics are so special, unique and convenient that C-based life is the most likely, everywhere in the universe.

If you notice As is below P in the periodic table. A general rule of thumb (with several exceptions) is that elements in the same column have similar properties and can sometimes be replaced with very similar properties.

That's also why Si is the next candidate. It is below C.

Since all elements in the universe have to be produced by fusion from the basic raw material of H in stars, heavier elements are exponentially rarer than lighter elements. C6 is the 4th most abundant element in the universe.

Interesting tidbit that As is poisonous to us because the body confuses it with P.

snowspot66
12-02-2010, 07:13 PM
Given there are billions of stars in the universe and probably trillions of planets, the idea that life doesn't exist elsewhere is mathematically ridiculous.

Upwards of sextillion stars last I read just a week or so ago. That's a number so large I'm not even sure how many 0's to put down or if I'm even spelling it right.

Mr. Elway
12-02-2010, 08:48 PM
the only reason one could believe in life elsewhere is if one take a leap of faith, which is precisely the argument used against religion.

Not to make this an argument about religion or anything but I think this comparison is fallacious. After all, there is life on this planet - lots of it. There are also lots of planets out there - a whole lot. It's perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that there may very well be life elsewhere. That's not faith - it's reason. You could, by the same rationale, assert that there is NOT life elsewhere. It's rather irrational to firmly believe one way or the other in my opinion, given how small our reach into the universe is.

To believe in a spiritual, supernatural entity is totally different. That is a true act of faith, because there is absolutely no physical evidence of such a being, anywhere, ever.

SJ Bronco
12-02-2010, 09:37 PM
I find the amount of people that love reality TV versus the people that find science interesting (or know a damn thing about it) quite sad, and further evidence of idiocracy on it's way.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:NWU6Kctd-Oo9-M:http://freakytrigger.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/idiocracy-1.jpg&t=1

Gort
12-02-2010, 09:41 PM
fact A: There is life on this planet - lots of it.
fact B: There are also lots of planets out there - a whole lot.
assertion C: It's perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that there may very well be life elsewhere.

assertion C does not follow from fact A and fact B.

just logically speaking, the jump from A & B to C is a "leap of faith". it's not reason. you have some built in, but not stated, assumptions here. if those assumptions are wrong, your conclusion is wrong. so before you go to C, you have to list your assumptions and show them to be true.

assertion C may end up being true. that's not the point. the point is that it doesn't necessarily follow from A & B.

Br0nc0Buster
12-02-2010, 10:07 PM
fact A: There is life on this planet - lots of it.
fact B: There are also lots of planets out there - a whole lot.
assertion C: It's perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that there may very well be life elsewhere.

assertion C does not follow from fact A and fact B.

just logically speaking, the jump from A & B to C is a "leap of faith". it's not reason. you have some built in, but not stated, assumptions here. if those assumptions are wrong, your conclusion is wrong. so before you go to C, you have to list your assumptions and show them to be true.

assertion C may end up being true. that's not the point. the point is that it doesn't necessarily follow from A & B.

no it isnt a leap at all
life is on this planet, therefore we know for a FACT it is possible for life to exist in this universe
you are essentially saying out of trillions and trillions of planets only 1 can sustain life on its surface some of the time because that is the only one we have seen so far do it, and yet you are the one complaining about others taking a "leap of faith"

it makes no sense at all to assume Earth is the only planet in the entire universe with these conditions, there is nothing to suggest another solar system somewhere else cant replicate something similar to ours

google the Drake Equation, life in this galaxy outside Earth almost assuredly exists, let alone life in any of the other hundreds of billions of galaxies

epicSocialism4tw
12-02-2010, 10:30 PM
I concur. While a certain set of assumptions are usually integral to a scientific experiment, if you assume too much, too little, or just flat out assume wrongly, the data become suspect.

The prospects are kinda cool, though. (What may be) an earth-based life form that might be able to alter the core of its own DNA structure in order to adapt to a loss of some component. Then again, maybe not. Thanks NASA. Go see if Richard Branson wants to contribute, I'm all tapped out.

Here's the deal about Carbon...

Carbon's chemical structure leads to a certain set of chemical and physical traits that are unique. Its tetravalent, which means that it forms 4 bonds with other molecules. This tetravalency leads to lengthy, stable molecules that when folded form the framework of organic molecules...the molecules that our bodies use to build first the tiny cellular components and ultimately the entire organism.

Carbon chemistry is a Godsend. Its the tie that binds us together molecularly.

The reason that people have surmised that it may be possible that Silicon-based life exists is because it is also tetravalent, even though it is a little less stable than Carbon due to its different size and atomic weight.

epicSocialism4tw
12-02-2010, 10:36 PM
To believe in a spiritual, supernatural entity is totally different. That is a true act of faith, because there is absolutely no physical evidence of such a being, anywhere, ever.

Thats not true.

Personally, I think that the perfect balance of physical and chemical events that brings forth all of the supercomplex moments that have risen forth from the material in the universe over time is more than enough evidence to prove the existence of a God. The beauty and complexity of such a thing is awe-striking and is recognizeable to us because our intelligence has been formulated within it. But why is it beautiful? There is no explanation for that.

Houshyamama
12-03-2010, 12:33 AM
i'll come back to it. very busy tonight with other things though.

i'm not opposed to the idea that there is life out there. maybe even intelligent life. it doesn't necessarily invalidate any religious beliefs that i may have.

but i require proof. and sound arguments. not wishful speculation by science fiction writers.

we just don't have any evidence whatsoever. in the absence of evidence, this is really no different than discussing the likelihood of the existence of the tooth fairy or leprechauns.

You're talking about God here?

Gort
12-03-2010, 12:37 AM
no it isnt a leap at all
life is on this planet, therefore we know for a FACT it is possible for life to exist in this universe
you are essentially saying out of trillions and trillions of planets only 1 can sustain life on its surface some of the time because that is the only one we have seen so far do it, and yet you are the one complaining about others taking a "leap of faith"

it makes no sense at all to assume Earth is the only planet in the entire universe with these conditions, there is nothing to suggest another solar system somewhere else cant replicate something similar to ours

google the Drake Equation, life in this galaxy outside Earth almost assuredly exists, let alone life in any of the other hundreds of billions of galaxies

your argument is based on probability. but certain assumptions need to be true for that argument to be valid. state those asusmptions and prove them to be true. that's what i'm saying. don't wave your hands and pretend that they are minor points, because they are not.

if all that is needed are a set of conditions to be present for life to spring forth, then that needs to be proven. your argument relies on that to be a FACT, yet it has never been shown to be true. it may be true. but the goal of science is to prove something to be true by the scientific method. to just state something to be true and move to the next subject is the realm for sci-fi writers.

you've stated above that it's almost certain that life exists. ok, prove it. i don't mean introduce me to extraterrestrial life. i mean show me a valid scientific justification for that belief even in the absence of direct proof. if you can't do that, then you can't state that extraterrestrial life certainly exists. do you see my point now? it's alright if you believe it to exist. i don't care about people's beliefs in the sense that i'm not going to argue that your belief is wrong once you acknowledge that it's a belief. just don't pass it off as a fact unless you can prove it.

life may well exist out there. i definitely don't know. but one thing i do know is that the following argument by itself is fallacious:

"life exists on our planet, and there are umpteen zillion other planets in the universe, so therefore there must be countless other planets out there with life on them".

it just doesn't work. the logic inherent in the argument is faulty.

Gort
12-03-2010, 12:44 AM
You're talking about God here?

not quite, but if you want to see it as equivalent, that's ok with me. to me the existence of extraterrestrial life isn't precluded by religion. if there is a God, how do we know we're the only lifeform "he" cares about?

we just don't know enough about how life originates to understand what's really involved. is it a random process that only needs the right chemicals and a couple of million years for everything to line up just right and all of the sudden life spring forth? maybe. maybe not. but nobody has yet factually proven that life begins in that way. so my argument is about the sloppiness of the other argument, i.e., that life must exist elsewhere because it exists here and there are so many other planets, that surely some of them must also have life.

Houshyamama
12-03-2010, 01:03 AM
not quite, but if you want to see it as equivalent, that's ok with me. to me the existence of extraterrestrial life isn't precluded by religion. if there is a God, how do we know we're the only lifeform "he" cares about?

we just don't know enough about how life originates to understand what's really involved. is it a random process that only needs the right chemicals and a couple of million years for everything to line up just right and all of the sudden life spring forth? maybe. maybe not. but nobody has yet factually proven that life begins in that way. so my argument is about the sloppiness of the other argument, i.e., that life must exist elsewhere because it exists here and there are so many other planets, that surely some of them must also have life.
What is your opinion on a self-replicating polypeptide enclosed in a bi-lipid layer? Would that be considered life?

edit: The fact that Bill Murray is arguing with himself is awesome.

I asked this before. Do you consider this life? What is your opinion on the RNA-World hypothesis? You are quick to dismiss all theories on the origin of life, throw up your hands and just say "I don't know what happened." This is fine, not everyone has to care, but it would be good to hear your opinion on the scientific merit of these scientific theories.

Gort
12-03-2010, 06:30 AM
I asked this before. Do you consider this life? What is your opinion on the RNA-World hypothesis? You are quick to dismiss all theories on the origin of life, throw up your hands and just say "I don't know what happened." This is fine, not everyone has to care, but it would be good to hear your opinion on the scientific merit of these scientific theories.

is self-replication enough? what about growth via metabolic processes? or adaptation/evolution as a result of internal/external changes?

aren't all 3 required by definition?

i can create a machine that makes copies of itself. that doesn't make it alive.

is that the sole accomplishment of a "self-replicating polypeptide enclosed in a bi-lipid layer". i don't know. that's not my area of expertise.

maybe the distinction between life and intelligent life is the one that's important in the universe. do we know that one springs from the other simply by allowing enough time. perhaps the universe is full of microscopic organisms, but we are the only planet with intelligent sentient life. in such a scenario, would it really matter that we've found "life" elsewhere? we couldn't communicate with it. :)

Br0nc0Buster
12-03-2010, 07:05 AM
your argument is based on probability. but certain assumptions need to be true for that argument to be valid. state those asusmptions and prove them to be true. that's what i'm saying. don't wave your hands and pretend that they are minor points, because they are not.

if all that is needed are a set of conditions to be present for life to spring forth, then that needs to be proven. your argument relies on that to be a FACT, yet it has never been shown to be true. it may be true. but the goal of science is to prove something to be true by the scientific method. to just state something to be true and move to the next subject is the realm for sci-fi writers.

you've stated above that it's almost certain that life exists. ok, prove it. i don't mean introduce me to extraterrestrial life. i mean show me a valid scientific justification for that belief even in the absence of direct proof. if you can't do that, then you can't state that extraterrestrial life certainly exists. do you see my point now? it's alright if you believe it to exist. i don't care about people's beliefs in the sense that i'm not going to argue that your belief is wrong once you acknowledge that it's a belief. just don't pass it off as a fact unless you can prove it.

life may well exist out there. i definitely don't know. but one thing i do know is that the following argument by itself is fallacious:

"life exists on our planet, and there are umpteen zillion other planets in the universe, so therefore there must be countless other planets out there with life on them".

it just doesn't work. the logic inherent in the argument is faulty.

it works just fine because my assertions already are true
again unless you think Earth has unique properties that cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the universe statistically speaking it is very probable to suggest other planets are in similar circumstances

you have yet to explain what specifically Earth has that makes it so unique and makes it impossible to exist elsewhere, unless you can do that then probability suggest there are other planets just like Earth elsewhere

you are trying to divert this by talking about origins of life, or stating because he havent seen any other life so far blah blah. Either Earth has characteristics that cannot be replicated or it doesnt, if it is the latter then out of the trillions of planets that exist odds are some are like Earth

Gort
12-03-2010, 08:40 AM
it works just fine because my assertions already are true
again unless you think Earth has unique properties that cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the universe statistically speaking it is very probable to suggest other planets are in similar circumstances

you have yet to explain what specifically Earth has that makes it so unique and makes it impossible to exist elsewhere, unless you can do that then probability suggest there are other planets just like Earth elsewhere

you are trying to divert this by talking about origins of life, or stating because he havent seen any other life so far blah blah. Either Earth has characteristics that cannot be replicated or it doesnt, if it is the latter then out of the trillions of planets that exist odds are some are like Earth

no, i'm saying your argument is flawed. trying to use a mathematical concept (probability) where it may not apply, is the problem.

by your previous postings, you're convinced of your position. that's fine. i'm not necessarily arguing that you are wrong, just that the reasoning for your position is wrong. give me solid reasoning and i'll shake your hand and say "good discussion". but give me BS as reasoning and i'll question it.

if life just springs up out of nowhere given the proper conditions, let's pretend that an earthlike planet is enough, then your argument would be valid. but the big assumption there still has to be proven. that assumption is that life just springs up out of nowhere given the proper conditions. this is not a scientific fact by any stretch of the imagination. but it's the main assumption behind your conclusion that extraterrestrial life is all over the universe. that's where you have to convince a skeptic. i'm not being a religious skeptic... i'm being a scientific skeptic. my background is electrical engineering. a good engineer takes the time to understand a problem before finding a solution. part of that is understanding where faulty assumptions may exist.

Br0nc0Buster
12-03-2010, 08:57 AM
no, i'm saying your argument is flawed. trying to use a mathematical concept (probability) where it may not apply, is the problem.

by your previous postings, you're convinced of your position. that's fine. i'm not necessarily arguing that you are wrong, just that the reasoning for your position is wrong. give me solid reasoning and i'll shake your hand and say "good discussion". but give me BS as reasoning and i'll question it.

if life just springs up out of nowhere given the proper conditions, let's pretend that an earthlike planet is enough, then your argument would be valid. but the big assumption there still has to be proven. that assumption is that life just springs up out of nowhere given the proper conditions. this is not a scientific fact by any stretch of the imagination. but it's the main assumption behind your conclusion that extraterrestrial life is all over the universe. that's where you have to convince a skeptic. i'm not being a religious skeptic... i'm being a scientific skeptic. my background is electrical engineering. a good engineer takes the time to understand a problem before finding a solution. part of that is understanding where faulty assumptions may exist.

there is nothing faulty is suggesting life can exist in conditions similar where it has been proven to exist
I never said it was a fact life will come up on planets like Earth, just that I have no idea why someone would doubt that it is possible life can come about on a planet like Earth

im saying its happened once, therefore it can happen again
I dont need to see it happen again to know that given the shear number of planets in this galaxy odds are Earth is not the only planet it has happened to

this is not even close to taking a leap of faith as we know all this stuff can be done, to suggest it happened more than once is not faith

Spider
12-03-2010, 09:05 AM
there's no reason... none... zip... nada... zilch... to think that there is life anywhere in the universe off the earth. we've not found it anywhere else. we have no evidence of it anywhere else. none whatsoever.

the only reason one could believe in life elsewhere is if one take a leap of faith, which is precisely the argument used against religion.

you can't make probability arguments in favor of it either. life has never been shown to be a random process, so the mathematics of probability shed no light on the answer.

we've been inundated with pop culture stories about space travel for 60-70 years now, and its under those conditions that many people have become amenable to the idea that extraterrestrial life is out there. but there's no evidence for it. it's just part of the culture that we've grown up with, and are therefore accepting as a postulate of the universe.

think of it this way. if i flip a coin 99 times and it always comes up heads. and then i show you that the coin really is 2-sided and there is no bias involved in the flipping of the coin. if i then ask you whether the next flip is more likely to be heads or tails, alot of people would say that heads is more likely (simply because of past trends) and alot of other people would say tails is "due". the correct answer is that neither is more likely than the other. the coin has no memory. past outcomes do no affect future outcomes. that's the definition of a random process.

just because our sun has life on 1 of 9 planets in its solar system, alot of people assume that a universe with 200 sextillion stars therefore MUST have life everywhere. that's a fallacy. unless life truly is a random process, the number of planets in the universe has nothing to do with whether or not extraterrestrial life exists.

until one can show that life springs out of a petry dish as a random process simply by combining the right chemical components, then we really can't know if life exists or is even likely elsewhere. that would require a leap of faith.

now perhaps you believe that the universe has been seeded by some higher race of beings. if life isn't a random accident, then that could account for life being found throughout the universe. however, we have no evidence for that either. in summary, today's announcement by NASA doesn't really amount to much of anything. it reinforces some false notions in pop culture and warms the hearts of some people who desperately want there to be life elsewhere out there, but nothing more than that.

i think the human race will disappear long before we ever find the answer to the question. the universe is a big, big place and the earth is located on a nondescript arm of an unremarkable galaxy in a forgotten corner of the universe. if alien races exist and are travelling the cosmos at the same time the human race is existant, there's little reason for them to investigate our neighborhood looking for us.
just so you know , we can only scan 10% of the skies for asteroids , much less find life any where else .......

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 09:10 AM
there's no reason... none... zip... nada... zilch...

The fallacy of this argument is that we do have evidence of life; Right here on Earth. We are immersed in it. It exists as a bacteria three miles down in the granite quarries of South Africa, to the troposphere, and in the deepest reaches of the sea. Do we know the process by which this life came to exist on Earth? No. Do we know something about the cosmic and geological processes that created Earth? Yes. Can we see those processes that created Earth manifesting all over the universe in different stages of development? Sure. Can we mathematically assume that whatever processes that created life on Earth would also be operating elsewhere in the universe? Of course. Arguing that the Earth is somehow exceptional would be numerically ridiculous. In fact, the argument for exceptionalism would require far more faith in unreasonable assumptions than the adverse.

Gort
12-03-2010, 09:34 AM
im saying its happened once, therefore it can happen again
I dont need to see it happen again to know that given the shear number of planets in this galaxy odds are Earth is not the only planet it has happened to.

this (above) is completely a leap of faith. you're so blinded by the idea that your assumptions are true that you don't even realize that they are assumptions.

i'm not personally going after "you" per se. i'm just trying to show you where you're argument has a problem. IF your assumption is true, THEN i understand your conclusion. but where is the proof that your assumption is true? and just so you understand and there is no confusion, you cannot answer by saying earth. because that's not the problem in your argument. the problem is that you are ASSERTING AS FACT THAT ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE TO SPRING FROM NOTHING IS A PLANET WITH THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. this is not a proven fact. my hangup is not that life could occur this way. my hangup is that it's an assumption without proof. maybe there is a God or some higher force required to spark life. if that were the case, then your assumption is wrong. but maybe there is no God and no higher force is required. until you can create life in a petry dish, don't tell me that the latter is the case. assumptions or religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs are not proof. and that's the problem i have with the argument that since there are so many planets, ipso facto there must also be lots of life out there. believe it. don't believe it. i don't care. just be rigorous and intellectually honest with your arguments. because if you are, the best you can say is that you believe that there is life out there, and that's the leap you're making.

if you can't or won't understand that point, then there's no point in arguing the semantics with you. if you're coming at this from an atheist's point of view, then this has become a religious debate, which is not resolvable. i don't want to challenge your beliefs. i just want you to recognize when you're passing off your beliefs as proven fact.

Gort
12-03-2010, 09:40 AM
just so you know , we can only scan 10% of the skies for asteroids , much less find life any where else .......

oh i know. if there is life all over the universe, i'm afraid we'll never know about it. the universe is incomprehensibly vast. because of the distances involved, it's highly unlikely that any extraterrestrial life would stumble upon us by accident.

it's neat to think about what's out there. i sometimes look at the stars and wonder about all of the amazing things that mighty be out there that the human race will never know about.

this is why i think UFOs and supposed alien encounters are all hooey. there are other reasons too. but the best argument against it is how isolated we are here in our unremarkable solar system. it's just implausible to think that just by dumb luck we are next door neighbors to an advanced space travelling species that exists at the same time we do.

gyldenlove
12-03-2010, 09:42 AM
a "divine spark" in quotes isn't necessarily supernatural. maybe God is just an advanced being or beings from elsewhere in the universe. i don't know. my point isn't about the actor anyway... it's about the action. what is needed to bring chemical compounds to life? mankind does not have an answer or even understanding of that. and that's just for the most simple sorts of lifeforms... what about advanced, intelligent life?

all of this is a very interesting discussion for sitting at a bar somewhere. but we need alot more info about alot more things before we can attempt to understand the nature of the universe and our place in it.

to be honest, i'm more interested in where our species is going in the next 500 years. forget the rest of the universe, i'd like to know what problems we've solved and how our technology has advanced by 2500. in some ways, i regret being born when i was. we've only been teased by what's coming... a couple of moon landings, deep submicron semiconductor technology, mapping of the genome, etc. i'd like to see where we are able to go (technologically) with such building blocks.

Then where did he come from? At some point life had to have started, no matter where and when.

Gort
12-03-2010, 09:45 AM
The fallacy of this argument is that we do have evidence of life; Right here on Earth. We are immersed in it. It exists as a bacteria three miles down in the granite quarries of South Africa, to the troposphere, and in the deepest reaches of the sea. Do we know the process by which this life came to exist on Earth? No. Do we know something about the cosmic and geological processes that created Earth? Yes. Can we see those processes that created Earth manifesting all over the universe in different stages of development? Sure. Can we mathematically assume that whatever processes that created life on Earth would also be operating elsewhere in the universe? Of course. Arguing that the Earth is somehow exceptional would be numerically ridiculous. In fact, the argument for exceptionalism would require far more faith in unreasonable assumptions than the adverse.

if life is a chemical accident only requiring the right combination of basic molecules, the right stimulus, and vast amounts of time, then you'd be right.

can you prove that's all that's necessary? i can't. nobody ever has. we don't understand the origins of life here. why doesn't this fundamental fact worry you? you're using it to extrapolate life all over the universe. shouldn't this basic assumption be proven first? if it's not proven, then you're taking it as a matter of faith that it's true. not religious faith. just the sort of faith that "says you want it to be true, it seems like it must be true, so let's just assume that it's true". that's not science.

Gort
12-03-2010, 09:50 AM
Then where did he come from? At some point life had to have started, no matter where and when.

i don't know. none of us know. and for that reason, it's no more correct to say that the universe is teeming with life because there are 200 sextillion other solar systems out there, than to say that we are all alone and there is no other life out there. wanting one assertion or the other to be true is not sufficient to say that they are true. either could be valid. that's my problem with the original NASA story and the conclusions jumped to by the media yesterday. it wasn't big news (you can google the same discussions about research at that lake from years ago) and it didn't in any way change the argument about whether or not the universe is teeming with life.

Spider
12-03-2010, 09:56 AM
oh i know. if there is life all over the universe, i'm afraid we'll never know about it. the universe is incomprehensibly vast. because of the distances involved, it's highly unlikely that any extraterrestrial life would stumble upon us by accident.

it's neat to think about what's out there. i sometimes look at the stars and wonder about all of the amazing things that mighty be out there that the human race will never know about.

this is why i think UFOs and supposed alien encounters are all hooey. there are other reasons too. but the best argument against it is how isolated we are here in our unremarkable solar system. it's just implausible to think that just by dumb luck we are next door neighbors to an advanced space travelling species that exists at the same time we do.
I dont know if they all are hooey or not , I' m sure alot of it is ..... dont know bout the accident part though , if there is life I am sure some of it is more advance , some of it behind us .... who can say for sure at this point in time , but I know we sent a probe outside of our solar system , we send out massive radio waves , constantly launch satellites into orbit , all of it producing unnatural energy , whos to say how far that the signals of that energy travel in space ?

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 10:06 AM
if life is a chemical accident only requiring the right combination of basic molecules, the right stimulus, and vast amounts of time, then you'd be right.

can you prove that's all that's necessary? i can't. nobody ever has. we don't understand the origins of life here. why doesn't this fundamental fact worry you? you're using it to extrapolate life all over the universe. shouldn't this basic assumption be proven first? if it's not proven, then you're taking it as a matter of faith that it's true. not religious faith. just the sort of faith that "says you want it to be true, it seems like it must be true, so let's just assume that it's true". that's not science.

I don't need to know the origin of life to know that the argument for the exceptionalism of life on Earth requires more "faith" than the opposite argument that life must exist all over the universe, because it exists here. Does vulcanism exist on other planets? Yes. Have we found planets with evidence of atmospheres? Yes. Can we assume there is tectonic activity due to gravitational forces, given that all planets we have found so far are circling suns and have other planets in their systems? Sure. Have we discovered the chemical makeups of some atmospheres on distant planets? Yes.

There is water on Earth. Given all that we already know about distant planets, is it safe to assume that water exists elsewhere in the universe? Sure. Wouldn't it be ridiculous to argue that water only exists on Earth, and nowhere else? So if we are sure of all of these things - vulcanism, tectonic activity, atmospheres, water, etc. what makes life so exceptional? In other words, in the rest of the universe we'll find everything else exists, just like here on Earth - except life? Makes no sense.

Gort
12-03-2010, 10:13 AM
I dont know if they all are hooey or not , I' m sure alot of it is ..... dont know bout the accident part though , if there is life I am sure some of it is more advance , some of it behind us .... who can say for sure at this point in time , but I know we sent a probe outside of our solar system , we send out massive radio waves , constantly launch satellites into orbit , all of it producing unnatural energy , whos to say how far that the signals of that energy travel in space ?

our first radio transmissions were about 115 years ago. let's assume those were strong enough for beings from another planet to detect. they've been travelling in space for 115 years at roughly the speed of light, so they would have reached any star within that distance of our sun (115 light years). that's a little more than 500 stars. our galaxy alone has about 500 billion stars. so our electromagnetic signals have only reached about 1 x 10^-9 % of our own galaxy, much less the rest of the universe. we've barely stuck our toe out the front door at this point.

Spider
12-03-2010, 10:34 AM
our first radio transmissions were about 115 years ago. let's assume those were strong enough for beings from another planet to detect. they've been travelling in space for 115 years at roughly the speed of light, so they would have reached any star within that distance of our sun (115 light years). that's a little more than 500 stars. our galaxy alone has about 500 billion stars. so our electromagnetic signals have only reached about 1 x 10^-9 % of our own galaxy, much less the rest of the universe. we've barely stuck our toe out the front door at this point.

ahhhhhh I see , so what if the aliens had long range detection ? the ability to scan large areas of space ? Granted we may not be able to get out very far , but we dont know what other life forms capabilities are ...... For example a shark can smell a drop of blood in the water from 2 miles away , doesnt mean the blood has to travel to the shark .......

Spider
12-03-2010, 10:41 AM
my point is , we know our limitations , our restrictions , what we can or cant do , but we dont know whats out there , we dont know what they can or cant do , or if they are even out there .... we could be inviting a **** load of trouble , or a way of life beyond our imagination ........Thrilling once you open your mind to it

Gort
12-03-2010, 10:44 AM
ahhhhhh I see , so what if the aliens had long range detection ? the ability to scan large areas of space ? Granted we may not be able to get out very far , but we dont know what other life forms capabilities are ...... For example a shark can smell a drop of blood in the water from 2 miles away , doesnt mean the blood has to travel to the shark .......

actually it does. or at least some special molecules from the blood that the shark can detect.

same thing with radio waves or light. nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so beyond 115 light years or so, nobody would yet see evidence of our existence. until our transmissions reach them or their transmissions reach us, we won't know of each others' existence.

this is the "vastness" problem i alluded to earlier. distances on a cosmic scale are hard for us to comprehend. but when you're talking about anything or anyone being near earth, you're talking on a cosmic scale. something 1000 light years away is practically right on top of us, compared to the vast expanse of the universe. but the "beings" who might inhabit a planet in a solar system 1000 light years away won't be picking up any of our transmissions for another 900 years or so. and those transmissions will be what we sent 100 years ago. by the time they receive them, the transmissions will be a 1000 years old. we might be gone by then. if they try to come and say hello, they might find a scorched earth and our race gone. or maybe, they exist right now on our planet, but by the time our transmissions reach them, their planet will have been scorched by a huge asteroid strike or whatever.

if we ever make contact with an extraterrestrial race (if they exist), it will have to be by dumb luck, because the distances involved are conspiring to prevent it.

Spider
12-03-2010, 10:53 AM
actually it does. or at least some special molecules from the blood that the shark can detect.

same thing with radio waves or light. nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so beyond 115 light years or so, nobody would yet see evidence of our existence. until our transmissions reach them or their transmissions reach us, we won't know of each others' existence.

this is the "vastness" problem i alluded to earlier. distances on a cosmic scale are hard for us to comprehend. but when you're talking about anything or anyone being near earth, you're talking on a cosmic scale. something 1000 light years away is practically right on top of us, compared to the vast expanse of the universe. but the "beings" who might inhabit a planet in a solar system 1000 light years away won't be picking up any of our transmissions for another 900 years or so. and those transmissions will be what we sent 100 years ago. by the time they receive them, the transmissions will be a 1000 years old. we might be gone by then. if they try to come and say hello, they might find a scorched earth and our race gone. or maybe, they exist right now on our planet, but by the time our transmissions reach them, their planet will have been scorched by a huge asteroid strike or whatever.

if we ever make contact with an extraterrestrial race (if they exist), it will have to be by dumb luck, because the distances involved are conspiring to prevent it.
no it doesnt , thats the point , the sharks smell sensory is that strong , it is the sharks ability to pick up the scent , not the bloods
chemicals that travel ..... again you are presuming to understand what limitations other species if they exists ,have or dont have , based on your understanding of our own technology , to pigeon toe something you dont understand , cant be done ....... like 20 years ago the thought of people communicating long distance over a computer or a cell phone was star trek crazy talk ...... Look now ....

Spider
12-03-2010, 10:57 AM
Let me approach it this way , my point isnt what we can do , or detect etc , my point is we dont know what life forms if any can or cant do , they maybe able to scan solar systems in a matter of hours , if they exist , or the trash can can be a major invention for em , we just dont know , and have to keep all possible scenarios open , Do I believe that Aliens come here and plant anal probes in us ? of course not , but have they visited ? dont know for sure

TailgateNut
12-03-2010, 10:59 AM
My only comment re: NASA and their "find". Let's just load a couple of gazillion dollars in the next rocket and blast it into space. The whole space exploration program is a waste of money which could be used more wisely here on earth.
On the other hand, if we keep ****ing up our planet we may need a place we can escape too when we've damaged it beyond repair.

broncosteven
12-03-2010, 11:00 AM
Upwards of sextillion stars last I read just a week or so ago. That's a number so large I'm not even sure how many 0's to put down or if I'm even spelling it right.

I thought I heard on news radio a couple days ago that they now think they were off and it is 3 times the last agreed upon estimate.

There is alot we still don't know about the universe, Dark matter will likely be the most important to understand and will be bigger than Relativity once we understand what it is and how it works.

Spider
12-03-2010, 11:01 AM
My only comment re: NASA and their "find". Let's just load a couple of gazillion dollars in the next rocket and blast it into space. The whole space exploration program is a waste of money which could be used more wisely here on earth.
On the other hand, if we keep ****ing up our planet we may need a place we can escape too when we've damaged it beyond repair.

or cut their funding so we cant see an asteroid coming at us ......... great plan

Gort
12-03-2010, 11:13 AM
no it doesnt , thats the point , the sharks smell sensory is that strong , it is the sharks ability to pick up the scent , not the bloods
chemicals that travel ..... again you are presuming to understand what limitations other species if they exists ,have or dont have

the shark is smelling molecules from the blood. the molecules have to travel there before the shark can "smell" them. scent is molecules. they diffuse through the water quickly. perhaps much more quickly than the visible blood you see in the water (because those molecules are larger and heavier and less chemically active), but they still come from the blood. it takes time though. the shark doesn't sense it instantly. it takes how ever long is required for the first free-moving molecules from the blood to reach the shark.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/latest-questions/question/2110/

based on your understanding of our own technology , to pigeon toe something you dont understand , cant be done ....... like 20 years ago the thought of people communicating long distance over a computer or a cell phone was star trek crazy talk ...... Look now ....

technology changes, not the laws of physics.

TailgateNut
12-03-2010, 11:21 AM
or cut their funding so we cant see an asteroid coming at us ......... great plan

:rofl:

....and when they tell us there is one on a collision course we can all move to one side of the planet and make the earth move the **** out of its' trajectory.

:rofl:

I'm sure being the first to walk on Mars will get us some kudos from somewhere, and with those we'll be able to gloat for another 50 years.

Spider
12-03-2010, 11:21 AM
the shark is smelling molecules from the blood. the molecules have to travel there before the shark can "smell" them. scent is molecules. they diffuse through the water quickly. perhaps much more quickly than the visible blood you see in the water (because those molecules are larger and heavier and less chemically active), but they still come from the blood. it takes time though. the shark doesn't sense it instantly. it takes how ever long is required for the first free-moving molecules from the blood to reach the shark.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/latest-questions/question/2110/
hmmmm serious questions bout this one


technology changes, not the laws of physics.
we have no more of a understanding of physics , in space , then McD does on coaching a football team

Spider
12-03-2010, 11:22 AM
:rofl:

....and when they tell us there is one on a collision course we can all move to one side of the planet and make the earth move the **** out of its' trajectory.

:rofl:

I'm sure being the first to walk on Mars will get us some kudos from somewhere, and with those we'll be able to gloat for another 50 years.

LOL forgot you are a drama queen ........ Never mind

TailgateNut
12-03-2010, 11:25 AM
LOL forgot you are a drama queen ........ Never mind

Drama Queen??? What has walking on the friggin moon done for us?

What will NASA do when an asteriod the size of Delaware is on a collision course? Warn us, or not?

Gort
12-03-2010, 11:30 AM
Drama Queen??? What has walking on the friggin moon done for us?

What will NASA do when an asteriod the size of Delaware is on a collision course? Warn us, or not?

would you really want to know?

an asteroid that size is an earth killer. we would all die. and there's nothing we could do about it. even if we saw it coming years in advance. the technology just doesn't exist yet.

would you want to be blissfully unaware until the moment of impact, or would you want to live in a world ruled by anarchy for the final weeks or months or years we had to live?

think about a world where everyone knows that extinction is 2 years away. you can expect the good people to stay good (mostly), but we have alot of bad people who will figure that all bets are off... there are no consequences, so anything goes.

Spider
12-03-2010, 11:31 AM
Drama Queen??? What has walking on the friggin moon done for us?

What will NASA do when an asteriod the size of Delaware is on a collision course? Warn us, or not?

what has the invention of electricity done for us ?it took the the invention of the light bulb .... just cause results from something doesnt happen fast , doesnt mean it is worthless ...Columbus didnt set out to discover a new world , he was trying to find a short cut for trade routes , and America didnt happen over night ......

Spider
12-03-2010, 11:32 AM
would you really want to know?

an asteroid that size is an earth killer. we would all die. and there's nothing we could do about it. even if we saw it coming years in advance. the technology just doesn't exist yet.

would you want to be blissfully unaware until the moment of impact, or would you want to live in a world ruled by anarchy for the final weeks or months or years we had to live?

think about a world where everyone knows that extinction is 2 years away. you can expect the good people to stay good (mostly), but we have alot of bad people who will figure that all bets are off... there are no consequences, so anything goes.
be like the Dinos ........ Ignorantly in bliss hey .....

broncosteven
12-03-2010, 11:36 AM
My only comment re: NASA and their "find". Let's just load a couple of gazillion dollars in the next rocket and blast it into space. The whole space exploration program is a waste of money which could be used more wisely here on earth.
On the other hand, if we keep ****ing up our planet we may need a place we can escape too when we've damaged it beyond repair.

Was this sarcasm?

This is an ignorant view and it has been proven wrong on so many levels. In the years before or after Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, we did not make this world a garden of Eden, one could argue that it was during those programs when we made our best leaps in human rights and technology. If you like your government having to bail it's citizens out because we haven't used all that money we didn't spend on technology and space exploration wisely, then I get your point.

We will need the resources from the planets in our solar system eventually, the Earth will run out of it's resources sooner than people think. Look at the race to build alternative fuel cars. People poo-pooed them for decades, everyone ignored them it took a War with terrorists and people being scared about global warming to finally gain acceptance and suddenly they are making strides. There should have been better options for powering cars than gas 40-50 years ago.

If we wait until the last minute to find a power source that lowers the cost of Orbital flights and the human race will litterally be doomed. I am not talking like the movies "Asteroid" or "2012" portray being doomed, I am talking about an event where we have exhausted coal, food, or other consumable. It will happen sooner than most think, we had the worst man made natural disaster because we were so desperate to drill in extreme locations, an people wanted to cut corners and cost.

It wouldn't cost that much to employ people in a sector to work on the hurdles that would keep us from getting to orbit cheaply or finding ways to mine resources from the planets and asteroids we could get to in a very short time span. It would help the economy of the areas where NASA recently had to shutdown and help the USA maintain it's leadership role in technology.

We could today build and implement a plan for Robotic mining of the moon (darkside only please) or comets/asteroids with minimal human interaction, kinda like the movie Moon but without the clones. Then building on that success we could robot mine or begin terraforming mars or Jupiter's and Saturns moons.

At some point there is no reason why we couldn't send a colony on a terraformed type asteriod to the nearest stars that have the resources we need.

Think about it this way, in the 1480's most people were content with staying in sight of land and they thought we had discovered all that we were meant to discover and beyond sight of land maps had "Here there be Dragons" written on them.

All it would take is for one country to find gold or diamonds on any of the planets that have volcanoes and if they could mine that they would control the world market just like Spain was able to do but for much longer. Once people start thinking long term and less short term we will begin advancements never though possible in lifetimes.

There is a new world(s) out there, in our own solar system, we just haven't been bothered to find them yet.

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 11:42 AM
there's no reason... none... zip... nada... zilch... to think that there is life anywhere in the universe off the earth. we've not found it anywhere else. we have no evidence of it anywhere else. none whatsoever.

the only reason one could believe in life elsewhere is if one take a leap of faith, which is precisely the argument used against religion.

you can't make probability arguments in favor of it either. life has never been shown to be a random process, so the mathematics of probability shed no light on the answer.

we've been inundated with pop culture stories about space travel for 60-70 years now, and its under those conditions that many people have become amenable to the idea that extraterrestrial life is out there. but there's no evidence for it. it's just part of the culture that we've grown up with, and are therefore accepting as a postulate of the universe.

think of it this way. if i flip a coin 99 times and it always comes up heads. and then i show you that the coin really is 2-sided and there is no bias involved in the flipping of the coin. if i then ask you whether the next flip is more likely to be heads or tails, alot of people would say that heads is more likely (simply because of past trends) and alot of other people would say tails is "due". the correct answer is that neither is more likely than the other. the coin has no memory. past outcomes do no affect future outcomes. that's the definition of a random process.

just because our sun has life on 1 of 9 planets in its solar system, alot of people assume that a universe with 200 sextillion stars therefore MUST have life everywhere. that's a fallacy. unless life truly is a random process, the number of planets in the universe has nothing to do with whether or not extraterrestrial life exists.

until one can show that life springs out of a petry dish as a random process simply by combining the right chemical components, then we really can't know if life exists or is even likely elsewhere. that would require a leap of faith.

now perhaps you believe that the universe has been seeded by some higher race of beings. if life isn't a random accident, then that could account for life being found throughout the universe. however, we have no evidence for that either. in summary, today's announcement by NASA doesn't really amount to much of anything. it reinforces some false notions in pop culture and warms the hearts of some people who desperately want there to be life elsewhere out there, but nothing more than that.

i think the human race will disappear long before we ever find the answer to the question. the universe is a big, big place and the earth is located on a nondescript arm of an unremarkable galaxy in a forgotten corner of the universe. if alien races exist and are travelling the cosmos at the same time the human race is existant, there's little reason for them to investigate our neighborhood looking for us.

I don't want to hijack this thread but I've bolded the biggest key to the theory (yes folks, it is only a theory even though it's taught like it's a fact) of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not work without random mutations. Think about that for a minute, it's staggering how weak the theory of evolution is when it all depends on complete randomality.

IndianaBronco
12-03-2010, 11:51 AM
if life is a chemical accident only requiring the right combination of basic molecules, the right stimulus, and vast amounts of time, then you'd be right.

can you prove that's all that's necessary? i can't. nobody ever has. we don't understand the origins of life here. why doesn't this fundamental fact worry you? you're using it to extrapolate life all over the universe. shouldn't this basic assumption be proven first? if it's not proven, then you're taking it as a matter of faith that it's true. not religious faith. just the sort of faith that "says you want it to be true, it seems like it must be true, so let's just assume that it's true". that's not science.

Haven't we already shown that life can be explained by a chemical accident requiring the right combination of basic molecules, the right stimulus, and time?

As for the formation of life from molecules and energy, see the Miller-Urey experiment amongst many others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

From those basic amino acids give it some time (vast amounts of time) and you get the diversity of life, ala Darwin.

Furthermore, I object to the characterization of believing science as faith like religious faith. First, I think believing the science is about playing the odds; it is much more probable that the earth was created from primordial soup than the hand of God--we have more evidence. It's not that I believe it in the sense that no evidence would shake me from it; it's simply the best evidence I have to go by. I call that a rational decision in light of the evidence, not an act of faith. Second, science is all about revising hypotheses as new evidence comes to light. If something comes up that convinces me to think about the world differently than I try to weigh the new evidence and come to a new conclusion. Religion, on the other hand is immutable--people cannot change despite evidence because it is not a matter of evidence but rather a matter of faith.

broncosteven
12-03-2010, 11:57 AM
Drama Queen??? What has walking on the friggin moon done for us?

What will NASA do when an asteriod the size of Delaware is on a collision course? Warn us, or not?

One person issued a challenge to an entire country to land men on the moon and return them safely to the Earth.

That nation accepted that challenge and completed it together. I shutter to think what would have happened if the Commies beat us to the moon.

I think the USA would be much better off if every decade our leaders would challenge it's citizens to greatness rather than have to bail them out because of greed and lusting for material things.

If you want to know what good Apollo did for the Country and the world just look through the NASA Apollo website or check out Gene's book, or Mike Collins's "Carrying the fire", Tom Kelly's "Moon Lander", Gene Cernan's "Last Man on the Moon". Or watch any of the History/discovery channels DVD's on the M/G/A programs.

When you compare the manned missions with the Robotic missions I think we have gotten more science back from the Voyager and Mar's Rover missions. 34 years later and Voyager is still recording and sending back data and even made a discovery about our heliosphere which posed even more questions about it and changed what we knew.

If we are going to shutdown manned orbital missions than we should be spending a lot more money on longer ranged robotic missions.

Saying space exploration is worthless is like calling the Lewis & Clark expedition worthless.

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 11:59 AM
IMO, the colonization of Mars is mandatory. The sooner, the better.

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 12:07 PM
Haven't we already shown that life can be explained by a chemical accident requiring the right combination of basic molecules, the right stimulus, and time?

As for the formation of life from molecules and energy, see the Miller-Urey experiment amongst many others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

From those basic amino acids give it some time (vast amounts of time) and you get the diversity of life, ala Darwin.

Furthermore, I object to the characterization of believing science as faith like religious faith. First, I think believing the science is about playing the odds; it is much more probable that the earth was created from primordial soup than the hand of God--we have more evidence. It's not that I believe it in the sense that no evidence would shake me from it; it's simply the best evidence I have to go by. I call that a rational decision in light of the evidence, not an act of faith. Second, science is all about revising hypotheses as new evidence comes to light. If something comes up that convinces me to think about the world differently than I try to weigh the new evidence and come to a new conclusion. Religion, on the other hand is immutable--people cannot change despite evidence because it is not a matter of evidence but rather a matter of faith.

Evolution is simply a theory my friend, and it has huge holes. Also, you're getting the evolution of life confused with how Earth was formed. Earth came first, then the primordial soup, then life.

And it all started with the biggest magic trick ever concieved by man: The Big Bang. Or as I like to call it, The Big Magic Trick.

I don't know how people can believe in the big bang (which breaks all the universal laws we currently hold and KNOW through SCIENCE and accept as facts) and yet question another person's faith in God.

Doesn't it also take a leap of faith to believe the Big Bang?

Br0nc0Buster
12-03-2010, 12:18 PM
this (above) is completely a leap of faith. you're so blinded by the idea that your assumptions are true that you don't even realize that they are assumptions.

i'm not personally going after "you" per se. i'm just trying to show you where you're argument has a problem. IF your assumption is true, THEN i understand your conclusion. but where is the proof that your assumption is true? and just so you understand and there is no confusion, you cannot answer by saying earth. because that's not the problem in your argument. the problem is that you are ASSERTING AS FACT THAT ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR LIFE TO SPRING FROM NOTHING IS A PLANET WITH THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. this is not a proven fact. my hangup is not that life could occur this way. my hangup is that it's an assumption without proof. maybe there is a God or some higher force required to spark life. if that were the case, then your assumption is wrong. but maybe there is no God and no higher force is required. until you can create life in a petry dish, don't tell me that the latter is the case. assumptions or religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs are not proof. and that's the problem i have with the argument that since there are so many planets, ipso facto there must also be lots of life out there. believe it. don't believe it. i don't care. just be rigorous and intellectually honest with your arguments. because if you are, the best you can say is that you believe that there is life out there, and that's the leap you're making.

if you can't or won't understand that point, then there's no point in arguing the semantics with you. if you're coming at this from an atheist's point of view, then this has become a religious debate, which is not resolvable. i don't want to challenge your beliefs. i just want you to recognize when you're passing off your beliefs as proven fact.

youre using a god of the gaps to suggest "well gee we dont know how life got here so maybe a magic man done it" as an acceptable alternative, Rohirrim(?) said what I meant perhaps in a more descriptive way

This was supposed to be about science, not superstition. I was wanting to talk about the natural ways life can form and see if Earth was indeed an isolated incident. I know what your point is, but when your are interjecting gods into this it takes away from the science I was trying to get at.

This isnt an "atheistic" view, its one that abides by Occams Razor

IndianaBronco
12-03-2010, 12:21 PM
Evolution is simply a theory my friend, and it has huge holes. Also, you're getting the evolution of life confused with how Earth was formed. Earth came first, then the primordial soup, then life.

And it all started with the biggest magic trick ever concieved by man: The Big Bang. Or as I like to call it, The Big Magic Trick.

I don't know how people can believe in the big bang (which breaks all the universal laws we currently hold and KNOW through SCIENCE and accept as facts) and yet question another person's faith in God.

Doesn't it also take a leap of faith to believe the Big Bang?

All theories have holes. Some theories are more probable than others. Where is the evidence for creation? Did you snap a photo of God touching Adam's finger? Did you snap a photo of God creating matter from nothing? Where is the evidence?

Big bang-- a theory, but very probable. We have strong evidence that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. Models from the big band do a fairly good job of explaining the expansion and the rate of expansion. What laws does the big bang break? None that I know of.

Origin of life-- again, a theory, but very probable. We have replicated such conditions in a lab and shown how life can emerge from matter.

Evolution-- explains how various species evolve after small organisms emerge. Again, a theory but very very probable--I would say almost certain. This isn't a matter of faith for me but an examination of the evidence. I find that evolution, through the mechanisms of random mutation, genetic drift, and disturbances best explain the diversity of life we see around us. Are there holes, sure; we don't have evidence of every species that ever lived so we cannot wholly reconstruct the evolutionary history of every species. However, we have a bunch of specimens and they tell a story which is largely consistent with evolution.

Again, though, science is about taking the most probable explanation. Even if some of these theories were not true, I find they provide the most compelling evidence currently available to explain the origins of earth, the origins of life on earth, and the diversity of life. If new evidence comes along I will change my opinion.

However, with religious faith no amount of evidence will change your opinion. What would you have to observe in order for you to be convinced of evolution. If you answer that no evidence would be sufficient then you take the proposition as a matter of faith.

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 12:27 PM
youre using a god of the gaps to suggest "well gee we dont know how life got here so maybe a magic man done it" as an acceptable alternative, Rohirrim(?) said what I meant perhaps in a more descriptive way

This was supposed to be about science, not superstition. I was wanting to talk about the natural ways life can form and see if Earth was indeed an isolated incident. I know what your point is, but when your are interjecting gods into this it takes away from the science I was trying to get at.

This isnt an "atheistic" view, its one that abides by Occams Razor

I love this. Which is easier to believe, evolution (which takes trillions of variables and depends on random mutations) or creationism (which says a higher power created everything)?

Occams Razor says it's creation.

However, athiests will never accept this because they claim there is no proof of God, hence, they wanna put faith is things like the Big Bang and evolution. It's simply a matter of replacing God with faith in magic.

gyldenlove
12-03-2010, 12:29 PM
Evolution is simply a theory my friend, and it has huge holes. Also, you're getting the evolution of life confused with how Earth was formed. Earth came first, then the primordial soup, then life.

And it all started with the biggest magic trick ever concieved by man: The Big Bang. Or as I like to call it, The Big Magic Trick.

I don't know how people can believe in the big bang (which breaks all the universal laws we currently hold and KNOW through SCIENCE and accept as facts) and yet question another person's faith in God.

Doesn't it also take a leap of faith to believe the Big Bang?

Phenomena that no theory other than the big bang can explain:

1. Cosmic microwave background
2. Universal expansion
3. Visible edge of the universe
4. No objects in the visible universe older than the visible edge of the universe

By the way the big bang doesn't break all universal laws, I struggle to think of a single law other than C symmetry (which is broken by other known laws as well) that it violates.

What holes does evolution have? Evolution has been demonstrated in micro and macro experiments and has been thouroughly observed in nature. If you are not comfortable extending evolution to creation of life that is fine, that aspect has not been demonstrated but evolution is a pretty solid theory.

Br0nc0Buster
12-03-2010, 12:35 PM
I would also like to point out evolution is both a fact and theory
its a fact that it happens, the theory is the model to explain it

gyldenlove
12-03-2010, 12:36 PM
I love this. Which is easier to believe, evolution (which takes trillions of variables and depends on random mutations) or creationism (which says a higher power created everything)?

Occams Razor says it's creation.

However, athiests will never accept this because they claim there is no proof of God, hence, they wanna put faith is things like the Big Bang and evolution. It's simply a matter of replacing God with faith in magic.

So you are saying the simplest explanation is to invent a divine being, give that being divine powers beyond meassure and have that divine being produce everything for no apparent reason?

That doesn't seem simple at all. Why would a higher power create an expanding universe? An Einstein-Desitter universe is for all intends and purposes a much more elegant solution. Why would a higher power make things such as the tailbone? There is no need to have it, yet it is still there, surely someone with the power to create a universe would not bother putting something useless in place when it is better and easier to put nothing at all.

The one idea of science that can not be violated is that science must explain itself. A theory can only exist successfully if it works within its own framework. If there is an all powerful divine being who can create a universe from nothing, where is that being? Or does your simple solution suddenly require the invention of existence outside the universe, because then your simple model is definitely not simple.

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 12:38 PM
I love this. Which is easier to believe, evolution (which takes trillions of variables and depends on random mutations) or creationism (which says a higher power created everything)?

Occams Razor says it's creation.

However, athiests will never accept this because they claim there is no proof of God, hence, they wanna put faith is things like the Big Bang and evolution. It's simply a matter of replacing God with faith in magic.

That's not true at all. Science isn't magic. And it's a shame that there are many in this world (usually driven by religious ideology) who are trying to disseminate that adoption of ignorance. Last time we did that, it was called the Dark Ages. Science is simply observing the physical world around us, in all of its manifestations, and attempting to understand, and describe, the laws under which it operates. Those hypotheses that cannot be disproved, and are supported by overwhelming evidence become laws, and those that can be disproved are discarded and replaced. God, you can just pluck out of your imagination and then apply any rules and behaviors you like, whether they are supportable or not.

IndianaBronco
12-03-2010, 12:49 PM
I love this. Which is easier to believe, evolution (which takes trillions of variables and depends on random mutations) or creationism (which says a higher power created everything)?

Occams Razor says it's creation.

However, athiests will never accept this because they claim there is no proof of God, hence, they wanna put faith is things like the Big Bang and evolution. It's simply a matter of replacing God with faith in magic.

God is not a simpler explanation. Even if you invoke God, this does not answer the question on the origin of life. Where did God come from? If you cannot answer that you have not provided an explanation, you are just waving your hands.

Big bang, emergence of life, and evolution provide a mutually self-contained explanation of the universe. God does not.

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 12:53 PM
All theories have holes. Some theories are more probable than others. Where is the evidence for creation? Did you snap a photo of God touching Adam's finger? Did you snap a photo of God creating matter from nothing? Where is the evidence?

Big bang-- a theory, but very probable. We have strong evidence that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. Models from the big band do a fairly good job of explaining the expansion and the rate of expansion. What laws does the big bang break? None that I know of..

Dude, basic laws of thermodynamics are broken, the laws of energy and matter are all broken in the big bang theory. That's just the beginning. Also, what is the universe expanding out into exactly? Did you ever think about that? What existed before the Big Bang? The universe is expanding, but expanding into what exactly, what lies beyond this great expansion? Is the universe expanding in a uniform way? Is it expanding like a sound wave expands or is it expanding only in a certain direction like being shot out or a shot gun? How did the Big Bang occur and why? None of this is "very probable" you are simply swallowing what acedemia is telling you.

Origin of life-- again, a theory, but very probable. We have replicated such conditions in a lab and shown how life can emerge from matter..

I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

Evolution-- explains how various species evolve after small organisms emerge. Again, a theory but very very probable--I would say almost certain. This isn't a matter of faith for me but an examination of the evidence. I find that evolution, through the mechanisms of random mutation, genetic drift, and disturbances best explain the diversity of life we see around us. Are there holes, sure; we don't have evidence of every species that ever lived so we cannot wholly reconstruct the evolutionary history of every species. However, we have a bunch of specimens and they tell a story which is largely consistent with evolution..

The theory of evolution falls apart without random mutations. If random mutations are the lynch pin holding the theory together, it's far from "very probably" IMHO.

Again, though, science is about taking the most probable explanation. Even if some of these theories were not true, I find they provide the most compelling evidence currently available to explain the origins of earth, the origins of life on earth, and the diversity of life. If new evidence comes along I will change my opinion.

However, with religious faith no amount of evidence will change your opinion. What would you have to observe in order for you to be convinced of evolution. If you answer that no evidence would be sufficient then you take the proposition as a matter of faith.

Fair enough. I'm not gonna argue this because it's your opinion, I simple suggest you question what you are being taught.

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 12:57 PM
God is not a simpler explanation. Even if you invoke God, this does not answer the question on the origin of life. Where did God come from? If you cannot answer that you have not provided an explanation, you are just waving your hands.

Big bang, emergence of life, and evolution provide a mutually self-contained explanation of the universe. God does not.

My point is you are substituting one type of faith for another. Big bang is a big magic trick and evolution has not been proven to be a fact and relys on random mutations. If you believe evolution is true, you are basing this more on faith than fact.

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 12:59 PM
That's not true at all. Science isn't magic. And it's a shame that there are many in this world (usually driven by religious ideology) who are trying to disseminate that adoption of ignorance. Last time we did that, it was called the Dark Ages. Science is simply observing the physical world around us, in all of its manifestations, and attempting to understand, and describe, the laws under which it operates. Those hypotheses that cannot be disproved, and are supported by overwhelming evidence become laws, and those that can be disproved are discarded and replaced. God, you can just pluck out of your imagination and then apply any rules and behaviors you like, whether they are supportable or not.

The Big Bang breaks all basic laws of matter and energy, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying we dump science, I'm simply saying we don't break basic laws in order to believe certain theories like the Big Bang.

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 01:01 PM
So you are saying the simplest explanation is to invent a divine being, give that being divine powers beyond meassure and have that divine being produce everything for no apparent reason?

That doesn't seem simple at all. Why would a higher power create an expanding universe? An Einstein-Desitter universe is for all intends and purposes a much more elegant solution. Why would a higher power make things such as the tailbone? There is no need to have it, yet it is still there, surely someone with the power to create a universe would not bother putting something useless in place when it is better and easier to put nothing at all.

The one idea of science that can not be violated is that science must explain itself. A theory can only exist successfully if it works within its own framework. If there is an all powerful divine being who can create a universe from nothing, where is that being? Or does your simple solution suddenly require the invention of existence outside the universe, because then your simple model is definitely not simple.

No, I'm saying the possibility of Creation is every bit as ligit as the possibility of the Big Bang and Evolution. Simply because we don't understand how a higher power exists, does not mean it does not exist.

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 01:02 PM
My point is you are substituting one type of faith for another. Big bang is a big magic trick and evolution has not been proven to be a fact and relys on random mutations. If you believe evolution is true, you are basing this more on faith than fact.

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 01:04 PM
No, I'm saying the possibility of Creation is every bit as ligit as the possibility of the Big Bang and Evolution. Simply because we don't understand how a higher power exists, does not mean it does not exist.

There is no physical evidence in this universe to support the theory of creationism.

chawknz
12-03-2010, 01:04 PM
I believe in science more than I believe in nutjobs.

IndianaBronco
12-03-2010, 01:11 PM
My point is you are substituting one type of faith for another. Big bang is a big magic trick and evolution has not been proven to be a fact and relys on random mutations. If you believe evolution is true, you are basing this more on faith than fact.

All right, I'm going to have to check out because I see this is getting nowhere...but one last attempt.

Science is not a faith in the same sense as religious faith. Evolution and big bang are not faith in the same way that God is. There are direct testable implications for these theories. By and large the empirical evidence is consistent with these theories. If an inconsistency arises then we go back and change the theory. However, my money is on the fact that these theories stay; not out of a sense of magic, but because they are the most consistent explanations I see.

Faith in God does not depend on empirical validation. You are starting with the premise that God created the world and then try to fit all of the empirical evidence to fit the theory. The theory will never be discarded despite any evidence; thus faith in God does not depend on empirical validation.

If you are unwilling to change your opinion based upon new theory or observation you are not engaged in science. If a more compelling theory that better fit the evidence were to emerge then scientists would adopt the new theory (over time).

Thus, I am not substituting faith in god for faith in science. They are two fundamentally different ways of viewing the world. You say you believe in god no matter what, but I don't say I believe in the big bang or evolution or primordial soup no matter what. I say I believe that they are currently our best explanation of the world. This is not faith; it is a rational decision in light of the evidence.

***By the way, what's the big hangup with random mutations? We have observed many random mutations in labs. For example, see this article on cancer cells: http://www.pnas.org/content/100/3/776.full

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 01:13 PM
There is no physical evidence in this universe to support the theory of creationism.

This does not make it any less possible. The physical evidence does not support evolution either.

So, there must be another theory that explains everything, correct?

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 01:15 PM
This does not make it any less possible. The physical evidence does not support evolution either.

So, there must be another theory that explains everything, correct?

There are massive amounts of physical evidence that support evolution. Ask anyone who breeds animals. The chihuahua was once a wolf.

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 01:16 PM
All right, I'm going to have to check out because I see this is getting nowhere...but one last attempt.

Science is not a faith in the same sense as religious faith. Evolution and big bang are not faith in the same way that God is. There are direct testable implications for these theories. By and large the empirical evidence is consistent with these theories. If an inconsistency arises then we go back and change the theory. However, my money is on the fact that these theories stay; not out of a sense of magic, but because they are the most consistent explanations I see.

Faith in God does not depend on empirical validation. You are starting with the premise that God created the world and then try to fit all of the empirical evidence to fit the theory. The theory will never be discarded despite any evidence; thus faith in God does not depend on empirical validation.

If you are unwilling to change your opinion based upon new theory or observation you are not engaged in science. If a more compelling theory that better fit the evidence were to emerge then scientists would adopt the new theory (over time).

Thus, I am not substituted faith in god for faith in science. They are two fundamentally different ways of viewing the world. You say you believe in god no matter what, but I don't say I believe in the big bang or evolution or primordial soup no matter what. I say I believe that they are currently our best explanation of the world. This is not faith; it is a rational decision in light of the evidence.

***By the way, what's the big hangup with random mutations? We have observed many random mutations in labs. For example, see this article on cancer cells: http://www.pnas.org/content/100/3/776.full

No, I'm saying that the Big Bang and Evolution have major flaws and that excluding the POSSIBILITY of creationism is another type of fallacy.

Believe what you want.

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 01:17 PM
There are massive amounts of physical evidence that support evolution. Ask anyone who breeds animals. The chihuahua was once a wolf.

That's not evolution.

IndianaBronco
12-03-2010, 01:21 PM
No, I'm saying that the Big Bang and Evolution have major flaws and that excluding the POSSIBILITY of creationism is another type of fallacy.

Believe what you want.

But how could I consider creationism? It does not provide any explanation at all. All it says is that God made life. But what made God? Further, there is no evidence on God's creation and no evidence on who/what created God. Creationism does not give us a theory of the origin of life so we are left with nothing to test.

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 01:21 PM
That's not evolution.

It's the same thing.

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 01:30 PM
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

From the same article:

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

So, basically this same article in fact admits that it doesn't know how random mutations work. A self replicationg molecule has to mutate to form a new self replicating molecule, otherwise it just keeps replicating, not evolving.

How does evolution cross the bridge from simply molecular structures to complex molecular structures to DNA to life? Random mutations. How do random mutations occure? It's a mystery!

Tombstone RJ
12-03-2010, 01:33 PM
It's the same thing.

No, it's not.

Fedaykin
12-03-2010, 02:23 PM
From the same article:

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

So, basically this same article in fact admits that it doesn't know how random mutations work. A self replicationg molecule has to mutate to form a new self replicating molecule, otherwise it just keeps replicating, not evolving.

How does evolution cross the bridge from simply molecular structures to complex molecular structures to DNA to life? Random mutations. How do random mutations occure? It's a mystery!

That excerpt is not saying we don't understand how random mutations occur. It's pointing out the flaws in calculations that creationists have in the statistical calculations they laughing try to produce. The particular (elementary) failure of these is very often that they assume sequential trials when such an assumption is unfounded.

The "mechanism" of mutation is not at all a mystery. That you even suggest such a thing is... hilarious. Go read any biology 101 book for a start.

Fedaykin
12-03-2010, 02:25 PM
No, it's not.

Technically you are both right. It is not Evolution by Natural Selection, but it is Evolution by Artificial Selection (the artificial part being humans selecting which genetic variations reproduce).

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 02:25 PM
No, it's not.

Much of what Darwin discovered and wrote about in Origin came from his own experiments from years of breeding pigeons.

Fedaykin
12-03-2010, 02:29 PM
Technically you are both right. It is not Evolution by Natural Selection, but it is Evolution by Artificial Selection (the artificial part being humans selecting which genetic variations reproduce).

Though to clarify. Roh is right, and TRJ is obviously is in way over his head ;)

521 1N5
12-03-2010, 02:32 PM
Having nothing to believe in and not knowing what's going to happen when you die??

Yikes!!!

Oh well..... If Tombstone is right, he's okay. If he's wrong and you and evolution are right, then he's okay.

What if YOU'RE wrong? Based on the Holy Bible, you are going to be in a world of trouble.

That's a heck of a gamble if you ask me...

521 1N5
12-03-2010, 02:33 PM
At least you are "smart" and "proud" though.

Good luck :)

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 02:35 PM
Having nothing to believe in and not knowing what's going to happen when you die??

Yikes!!!

Oh well..... If Tombstone is right, he's okay. If he's wrong and you and evolution are right, then he's okay.

What if YOU'RE wrong? Based on the Holy Bible, you are going to be in a world of trouble.

That's a heck of a gamble if you ask me...

Remember the Law of Conservation of Energy.

We all just go back into the pool. ;D

521 1N5
12-03-2010, 02:45 PM
Remember the Law of Conservation of Energy.

We all just go back into the pool. ;D

Like I said, quite a gamble bro...

I mean you don't know that to be 100% truth. Aren't you scared? You are really that confident in another mans theory?

And before you say "Well the Bible is another mans theory as well" I will respond:

Maybe so.....maybe so. But you are going to put all of your faith as far as what happens when you die into a Wikipedia article about chihuahua's stemming from wolves?

Are you afraid to die??

IndianaBronco
12-03-2010, 02:58 PM
At least you are "smart" and "proud" though.

Good luck :)

So your advice is that we pretend to believe in God because even if the evidence does not point that way we should ignore all our reason and fake-it? Even if there were a God, do you think that this type of "faith" will suffice?

Look, if the evidence doesn't persuade you, you can't just pretend like it does and then pretend that God will accept you. Worse, I can't imagine a God that would want me to put my critical reasoning on hold.

Br0nc0Buster
12-03-2010, 02:58 PM
Having nothing to believe in and not knowing what's going to happen when you die??

Yikes!!!

Oh well..... If Tombstone is right, he's okay. If he's wrong and you and evolution are right, then he's okay.

What if YOU'RE wrong? Based on the Holy Bible, you are going to be in a world of trouble.

That's a heck of a gamble if you ask me...

Evolution has nothing to do with what happens when another person dies
the fact you think the two are exclusive shows how made up your beliefs are
they are not based on logic, but fear
fear you wont survive death if you dont reject everything that shows the Bible is wrong

that is called Pascals Wager, google it sometime
its perhaps the worst argument for a religion ever invented, and that is saying something

521 1N5
12-03-2010, 03:06 PM
Evolution has nothing to do with what happens when another person dies
the fact you think the two are exclusive shows how made up your beliefs are
they are not based on logic, but fear
fear you wont survive death if you dont reject everything that shows the Bible is wrong

that is called Pascals Wager, google it sometime
its perhaps the worst argument for a religion ever invented, and that is saying something

The ongoing argument was Creation vs Evolution and I was simply asking if you guys don't believe in God or the Holy Bible, are you afraid to die??

IndianaBronco
12-03-2010, 03:10 PM
The ongoing argument was Creation vs Evolution and I was simply asking if you guys don't believe in God or the Holy Bible, are you afraid to die??

Since when does fear define truth? Why does it matter if we are afraid? You might be scared of something because its true, right?

521 1N5
12-03-2010, 03:14 PM
So your advice is that we pretend to believe in God because even if the evidence does not point that way we should ignore all our reason and fake-it? Even if there were a God, do you think that this type of "faith" will suffice?

Look, if the evidence doesn't persuade you, you can't just pretend like it does and then pretend that God will accept you. Worse, I can't imagine a God that would want me to put my critical reasoning on hold.

Listen brother, I appreciate your argument and your attempt at validity..

But, you are doing the same thing in relation to God and salvation...

YOUR evidence does not point that way. The evidence YOU choose to believe does not point that way.

My evidence says you are wrong.

521 1N5
12-03-2010, 03:16 PM
Since when does fear define truth? Why does it matter if we are afraid? You might be scared of something because its true, right?

Since when does ignorance define truth???

If fear of dying is my path to salvation, I will gladly accept it.

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 03:17 PM
Like I said, quite a gamble bro...

I mean you don't know that to be 100% truth. Aren't you scared? You are really that confident in another mans theory?

And before you say "Well the Bible is another mans theory as well" I will respond:

Maybe so.....maybe so. But you are going to put all of your faith as far as what happens when you die into a Wikipedia article about chihuahua's stemming from wolves?

Are you afraid to die??


A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”(from A Brief History of Time, S. Hawking)

IndianaBronco
12-03-2010, 03:18 PM
Listen brother, I appreciate your argument and your attempt at validity..

But, you are doing the same thing in relation to God and salvation...

YOUR evidence does not point that way. The evidence YOU choose to believe does not point that way.

My evidence says you are wrong.

That's fine...if you choose to examine the evidence and conclude so then the more power to you. Your argument, however, was that the evidence was irrelevant, and that one should believe for fear of damnation. All I'm saying is that if you don't buy the evidence, telling someone to "just believe anyway" is ridiculous.

521 1N5
12-03-2010, 03:20 PM
Listen, I'm not gonna argue anymore.

I will just revert back to my original comment.

If you are right, okay fine everything goes black and we go back into the earth.

But if the Holy Bible is right......

broncosteven
12-03-2010, 03:21 PM
The ongoing argument was Creation vs Evolution and I was simply asking if you guys don't believe in God or the Holy Bible, are you afraid to die??

I am late to the argument but I am content with knowing that when I die my family will cremate me and dump me on a mountain side and my matter will return to the earth and the universe and I will be at peace.

If I have a spirit I hope I can travel the universe and witness it's wonders myself. I really don't want to spend eternity in a place built of gold where I have to supplicate all the time.

521 1N5
12-03-2010, 03:22 PM
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”(from A Brief History of Time, S. Hawking)

Wow "a well-known scientist"

Awesome reference Hawking!

IndianaBronco
12-03-2010, 03:23 PM
Since when does ignorance define truth???

If fear of dying is my path to salvation, I will gladly accept it.

But that's just it. Do you really think God would accept your faith, not because you really believed in him? No! If you think that all of the evidence does not point to God, but choose to believe because your scared? I just don't think (at least the Christian) God would accept that.

Who is ignorant? I'm not calling names. I'm simply stating that I believe the evidence supports one conclusion and you believe something else. I never said you were ignorant. Why would you say I am? As someone who believed wholeheartedly for many many years and even served a Christian mission I can tell you I am not ignorant of the issues. I just find the naturalistic explanations more convincing now that I have been more careful to review the evidence.

521 1N5
12-03-2010, 03:27 PM
But that's just it. Do you really think God would accept your faith, not because you really believed in him? No! If you think that all of the evidence does not point to God, but choose to believe because your scared? I just don't think (at least the Christian) God would accept that.

Who is ignorant? I'm not calling names. I'm simply stating that I believe the evidence supports one conclusion and you believe something else. I never said you were ignorant. Why would you say I am? As someone who believed wholeheartedly for many many years and even served a Christian mission I can tell you I am not ignorant of the issues. I just find the naturalistic explanations more convincing now that I have been more careful to review the evidence.

PATH to salvation. Oh, don't get it twisted, I definitely believe in God, Jesus Christ dying for my sins and your sins, and eternal life. Don't think for one second my faith is based solely on fear of dying...I never once said that.

That was just my question to you.

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 03:35 PM
Wow "a well-known scientist"

Awesome reference Hawking!

It's a comedic anecdote. Why is it that the hyper-religious never seem to have a sense of humor?

521 1N5
12-03-2010, 03:37 PM
I'm not religious. Have a good night boys.

Fedaykin
12-03-2010, 04:14 PM
Having nothing to believe in and not knowing what's going to happen when you die??

Yikes!!!

Oh well..... If Tombstone is right, he's okay. If he's wrong and you and evolution are right, then he's okay.

What if YOU'RE wrong? Based on the Holy Bible, you are going to be in a world of trouble.

That's a heck of a gamble if you ask me...

Until Thor smashes him into a thin organic paste for his blasphemy.

TailgateNut
12-03-2010, 04:18 PM
what has the invention of electricity done for us ?it took the the invention of the light bulb .... just cause results from something doesnt happen fast , doesnt mean it is worthless ...Columbus didnt set out to discover a new world , he was trying to find a short cut for trade routes , and America didnt happen over night ......


....and what does your rambling have to do with the price of eggs on the moon?;D

gyldenlove
12-03-2010, 04:19 PM
No, I'm saying the possibility of Creation is every bit as ligit as the possibility of the Big Bang and Evolution. Simply because we don't understand how a higher power exists, does not mean it does not exist.

Don't run out on your own argument.

I love this. Which is easier to believe, evolution (which takes trillions of variables and depends on random mutations) or creationism (which says a higher power created everything)?

Occams Razor says it's creation.

However, athiests will never accept this because they claim there is no proof of God, hence, they wanna put faith is things like the Big Bang and evolution. It's simply a matter of replacing God with faith in magic.

Occam's razor is the notion that the simplest solution is often the correct solution, so to claim that Occam's razor is creation as you clearly did, is to say that creation is the simplest solution.

I pointed out there is nothing simple about creationism, in fact it raises so many questions and contradictions it is doubtful if it can be seen as a solution at all.

Creationism can not rest in itself because it does explain itself.

Old Dude
12-03-2010, 04:20 PM
Until Thor smashes him into a thin organic paste for his blasphemy.

And thus was Pascal's Wager refuted.

gyldenlove
12-03-2010, 04:26 PM
Like I said, quite a gamble bro...

I mean you don't know that to be 100% truth. Aren't you scared? You are really that confident in another mans theory?

And before you say "Well the Bible is another mans theory as well" I will respond:

Maybe so.....maybe so. But you are going to put all of your faith as far as what happens when you die into a Wikipedia article about chihuahua's stemming from wolves?

Are you afraid to die??

Actually believing is a much bigger gamble.

What is the first commandment? it doesn't state anything about not having a god, the same is true for most other religions, they all forbid very expressly to have the wrong religion, but not having no religion.

Anyone who guesses wrong when it comes to religion will be in for the worst punishment, people who don't guess will according to most scribture be let of much much easier, heck even St Peter renounced Christ, but that didn't stop him from going to heaven.

HAT
12-03-2010, 04:44 PM
Who would have guessed that a creation/evolution argument would break out in a thread about NASA. ???

TailgateNut
12-03-2010, 05:07 PM
Who would have guessed that a creation/evolution argument would break out in a thread about NASA. ???


We all know space was created in 6 days and then there was a party which involved snakes and apples.;D

Houshyamama
12-03-2010, 06:11 PM
I love this. Which is easier to believe, evolution (which takes trillions of variables and depends on random mutations) or creationism (which says a higher power created everything)?

Occams Razor says it's creation.

However, athiests will never accept this because they claim there is no proof of God, hence, they wanna put faith is things like the Big Bang and evolution. It's simply a matter of replacing God with faith in magic.

What is easier to believe?

You're telling me that the god worshiped by a bunch of nomads who wandered the Middle East 4000 years ago is responsible for creating the entire universe? The universe is what, 14 billion years old? The Bible isn't even an original story, it is mostly piecemealed from much older legends. THAT is easier to believe than scientific theory?

Wow.

Requiem
12-03-2010, 06:42 PM
Don't tell the Jesus worshipers about the Bible being an amalgamation of myths from cultures thousands of years ahead of his time, they will get really pissed off.

Rohirrim
12-03-2010, 07:38 PM
Don't tell the Jesus worshipers about the Bible being an amalgamation of myths from cultures thousands of years ahead of his time, they will get really pissed off.

Or how about Jesus fulfilling the prophecies of the Roman version of the Mithra cult? ;D

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

Kid A
12-03-2010, 08:36 PM
Who would have guessed that a creation/evolution argument would break out in a thread about NASA. ???

I might have.

gyldenlove
12-03-2010, 08:39 PM
We all know space was created in 6 days and then there was a party which involved snakes and apples.;D

That was one crazy ho-down...

Cmac821
12-03-2010, 08:56 PM
I read the last two pages on religion and my head hurts, lurking can be dangerous

Spider
12-04-2010, 12:54 PM
....and what does your rambling have to do with the price of eggs on the moon?;D

point is we just dont know , alot of things we take for granted now days was invented through accident , or needed some other invention to work , going ot the moon could be one of these things , Just like with Columbus , he didnt set out to find a new world , he wanted to find shorter trade routes ......

Mr. Elway
12-04-2010, 01:05 PM
fact A: There is life on this planet - lots of it.
fact B: There are also lots of planets out there - a whole lot.
assertion C: It's perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that there may very well be life elsewhere.

assertion C does not follow from fact A and fact B.

just logically speaking, the jump from A & B to C is a "leap of faith". it's not reason. you have some built in, but not stated, assumptions here. if those assumptions are wrong, your conclusion is wrong. so before you go to C, you have to list your assumptions and show them to be true.

assertion C may end up being true. that's not the point. the point is that it doesn't necessarily follow from A & B.

Right, which is why I used the term "reasonable hypothesis," which I contrasted with "act of faith."

oubronco
12-04-2010, 02:34 PM
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:VvfuhWEK7lg2IM:http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n220/cherizzledizzle/PissOnChiefs.jpg&t=1

Gort
12-08-2010, 11:38 AM
...and now the NASA report comes under criticism from peers because the "science" behind it was deeply flawed, as expected.

"I suspect that NASA may be so desperate for a positive story that they didn't look for any serious advice from DNA or even microbiology people," UC-Davis biology professor John Roth told Zimmer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101208/sc_yblog_thelookout/scientists-poking-holes-in-nasas-arsenic-eating-microbe-discovery

this is a good example of what we've seen over and over again from NASA. they need PR to keep their flow of tax dollars steady, so they fabricate and extrapolate and hype some sort of "finding" knowing that an ignorant mainstream media will buy it hook, line, and sinker... and then months later when their reports are peer reviewed, they are laughed out of the conference.

this is all very predictable.