Another religion thread!

[barfo]

Life exists elsewhere in the universe. Unproven, and such life is unseen if it does exist, eh?

Yes, but who "believes" in it? I think most scientists would say they think it is likely (or unlikely). They wouldn't say "I believe/disbelieve in life on other planets, and I will ignore all evidence to the contrary because for me, it is a matter of faith".

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

Life exists elsewhere in the universe. Unproven, and such life is unseen if it does exist, eh?

scientists don't "believe" that in a religious sense. some think the probability is close to 100%, but they have objective reason to based on their view evidence (fact that we exist, size of the universe, wide distribution of elements of life, high probability massive number of earth-like planets exist etc).

again, that is different than believing it because they "feel" it should or must be true.

 

[crowTrobot]

Hemeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stiumuli, reproduction.

that defintion works for differentiating living from non-living things today only because nothing in between exists.

however if there was a continuous cline of progressively more complex structures in between a growing, reproducing crystal (for example) and a cell, where to draw the line becomes entirely subjective. the meaning of those terms as they apply to the simplest form of life becomes subjective.

 

[Denny Crane]

scientists don't "believe" that in a religious sense. some think the probability is close to 100%, but they have objective reason to based on their view evidence (fact that we exist, size of the universe, wide distribution of elements of life, high probability massive number of earth-like planets exist etc).

again, that is different than believing it because they "feel" it should or must be true.

Seems to me they want it to be true, even though there truly isn't a shred of evidence - not one measurable thing. A single cell not from this world would suffice. A radio signal would be pretty neat.

 

[barfo]

Seems to me they want it to be true, even though there truly isn't a shred of evidence to the contrary. A single cell not from this world would suffice.

Wanting something to be true is different than believing it. I want you to give me $1 billion, I don't believe you will, however.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

I think the question that religion tries to address is the "why" rather than the "how." Science has proved (or brought about theories) regarding the how things happened (big bang, evolution, etc) but it doesn't really have an answer to why. That's why i feel people are drawn to religion as a means of explanation.

science is certainly looking for "why". there is just no assumption than intelligent human-like purpose intrinsically exists in anything that goes on in nature.

 

[crowTrobot]

even though there truly isn't a shred of evidence - not one measurable thing. A single cell not from this world would suffice. A radio signal would be pretty neat.

you're talking about proof, not evidence. there is plenty of evidence, starting with life on earth.

 

[Denny Crane]

you're talking about proof, not evidence. there is plenty of evidence, starting with life on earth.

"on earth" isn't elsewhere in the universe. I believe (there's that word again!) life is incredibly rare - so rare that we might be the only instance of it anywhere. Plenty of evidence:

1) Goldilocks Zone
2) not a binary star system (that cuts out 60% of every solar system out there)
3) plate tectonics
4) Ozone layer (UV protection)
5) Magnetosphere
6) Random luck - our planet collided with another the size of mars and survived (creating the moon)
7) The abnormal size of our moon relative to earth
&c

A lot of things have to align for life to exist - this is why we don't find it all over the other planets and moons in our solar system. Given how life takes hold, flourishes, and due to evolution it adapts, surely it would be everywhere, not just here. Especially if the precursors are in all those meteors that hit all the planets and moons.

 

[Minstrel]

"on earth" isn't elsewhere in the universe. I believe (there's that word again!) life is incredibly rare - so rare that we might be the only instance of it anywhere. Plenty of evidence:

1) Goldilocks Zone
2) not a binary star system (that cuts out 60% of every solar system out there)
3) plate tectonics
4) Ozone layer (UV protection)
5) Magnetosphere
6) Random luck - our planet collided with another the size of mars and survived (creating the moon)
7) The abnormal size of our moon relative to earth

You're describing a situation exactly like Earth, which isn't a pre-requisite for life. Life can exist on a planet without a moon, let alone a moon with the same proportions to its planet. Life may be different, the make-up of the world may be different, but there's nothing at all that implies everything must look identical to Earth, right down to the moon and its size, for life to exist. The same is true for plate tectonics.

It's likely that a sheltering atmosphere and magnetosphere (though that's hardly uncommon) are important, but it's possible that they aren't essential to life either. Unless you think life must be exactly like us, your avenue of argument isn't that compelling, IMO.

 

[Denny Crane]

You're describing a situation exactly like Earth, which isn't a pre-requisite for life. Life can exist on a planet without a moon, let alone a moon with the same proportions to its planet. Life may be different, the make-up of the world may be different, but there's nothing at all that implies everything must look identical to Earth, right down to the moon and its size, for life to exist. The same is true for plate tectonics.

It's likely that a sheltering atmosphere and magnetosphere (though that's hardly uncommon) are important, but it's possible that they aren't essential to life either. Unless you think life must be exactly like us, your avenue of argument isn't that compelling, IMO.

But life on earth is evidence it exists elsewhere.

Exactly what gives you any inkling that life elsewhere might be different than us? Evidence, please.

As far as the moon, it keeps the earth's rotation rather steady (23 degrees), causes the tides that stir up the primordial goo, and so forth.

 

[Eastoff]

There would be stories of how God caused Bob's car to go off a cliff and into the river, or how God struck down Sally with a tremendous case of the clap.

you know they had it coming!

 

[barfo]

Exactly what gives you any inkling that life elsewhere might be different than us? Evidence, please.

Earthworms. Earthworms are different from us.

As far as the moon, it keeps the earth's rotation rather steady (23 degrees), causes the tides that stir up the primordial goo, and so forth.

There are probably other ways to stir up primordial goo.

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

scientists don't "believe" that in a religious sense.

not what you're talking about with alien life, but I thought I should say, I had a lot of physics professors, all doctorates, that were religious. Mostly Jewish, and I think one was Bahai

 

[Eastoff]

But life on earth is evidence it exists elsewhere.

Exactly what gives you any inkling that life elsewhere might be different than us? Evidence, please.

As far as the moon, it keeps the earth's rotation rather steady (23 degrees), causes the tides that stir up the primordial goo, and so forth.

and it's a nice asteroid shield

 

[Minstrel]

But life on earth is evidence it exists elsewhere.

Life on Earth is evidence that nature can create life. Nature exists on other planets too. I have faith in that.

Exactly what gives you any inkling that life elsewhere might be different than us?

Might? Anything might be. You're giving me a weak standard to defend, so that's cool. As barfo noted, there's a wide diversity of life on this planet. We can also, through study of biology, envision other biologically viable life that doesn't operate like us. If you want the "evidence," you'll need to actually study biology. As the kids (by which I mean, professors) say: That's outside the scope of this class.

As far as the moon, it keeps the earth's rotation rather steady (23 degrees), causes the tides that stir up the primordial goo, and so forth.

Yeah, that's a nice factoid about Earth. Imagine the factoids about other planets, where their, I dunno, magnetars do all sorts of fascinating things for them. They have their own Denny, denying the existence of us because of the implausibility of life arising on a planet woefully devoid of a local magnetar.

 

[Eastoff]

Life on Earth is evidence that nature can create life. Nature exists on other planets too. I have faith in that.



Might? Anything might be. You're giving me a weak standard to defend, so that's cool. As barfo noted, there's a wide diversity of life on this planet. We can also, through study of biology, envision other biologically viable life that doesn't operate like us. If you want the "evidence," you'll need to actually study biology. As the kids (by which I mean, professors) say: That's outside the scope of this class.



Yeah, that's a nice factoid about Earth. Imagine the factoids about other planets, where their, I dunno, magnetars do all sorts of fascinating things for them. They have their own Denny, denying the existence of us because of the implausibility of life arising on a planet woefully devoid of a local magnetar.

a magnetar, that's preposterous HMmm'HAY! Glaven..

 

[Denny Crane]

Life on Earth is evidence that nature can create life. Nature exists on other planets too. I have faith in that.



Might? Anything might be. You're giving me a weak standard to defend, so that's cool. As barfo noted, there's a wide diversity of life on this planet. We can also, through study of biology, envision other biologically viable life that doesn't operate like us. If you want the "evidence," you'll need to actually study biology. As the kids (by which I mean, professors) say: That's outside the scope of this class.



Yeah, that's a nice factoid about Earth. Imagine the factoids about other planets, where their, I dunno, magnetars do all sorts of fascinating things for them. They have their own Denny, denying the existence of us because of the implausibility of life arising on a planet woefully devoid of a local magnetar.

With such a weak standard to defend, how did you fail so miserably?

Life on earth is carbon molecule based. Silicon is right below Carbon on the periodic table, and it's been suggested that maybe there could be Silicon based life since the chemical bonds could work the same. But there isn't any Silicon based life, so no evidence, just something imaginary (like God, of all things).

It's true that Nature works on other planets, but from what actual evidence we've seen, other planets are barren and frozen deserts or burnt cinders of rock or highly radiated. If there were life, like a mold or something, it'd be visible from earth with a telescope. If life isn't rare, why wouldn't it be everywhere?

 

[crowTrobot]

It's true that Nature works on other planets, but from what actual evidence we've seen, other planets are barren and frozen deserts or burnt cinders of rock or highly radiated.

there have been multiple suspect (it is still hard to tell with current technology) earth-like planets found just around nearby stars including one that appears to be covered with liquid water.

If there were life, like a mold or something, it'd be visible from earth with a telescope.

well at least you should be able to smell it with a smelloscope. give me a break.

If life isn't rare

"isn't rare" is subjective. there are at least 30 sextillion (3 x 10^22) stars just in the visible universe (which may be only a tiny fraction of what exists if inflationary theory is correct). if only .000000000001% of those contained planets or moons with life, life would still exist in a trillion places.

why wouldn't it be everywhere?

for all we know life may exist everywhere it can possibly exist.

 

[hasoos]

Here you go the first laboratory experiment to verify evolution via natural selection using bacteria at high temperature:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18761

So evolution has never been shown to take place in a lab aye?

 

[Eastoff]

Here you go the first laboratory experiment to verify evolution via natural selection using bacteria at high temperature:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18761

So evolution has never been shown to take place in a lab aye?

"But that's micro-evolution, not macro evolution" the morons like to say.

 

[Minstrel]

With such a weak standard to defend, how did you fail so miserably?

The weak standard was to defend "might." That's easy and I successfully defended that: anything might be.

Life on earth is carbon molecule based. Silicon is right below Carbon on the periodic table, and it's been suggested that maybe there could be Silicon based life since the chemical bonds could work the same. But there isn't any Silicon based life, so no evidence

Again, you asked for evidence that life could be different from us. You've given a nice example of such evidence. There could be silicon-based life, as the biology and chemistry show that it's a viable possibility. I never said there was evidence that such life does exist. This started with me pointing out that a planet does not have to a 100% carbon copy of Earth for it to possibly harbour life. You asked what evidence there is that life COULD be any different from us. And then you, yourself, admitted such evidence.

I realize you're arguing just to be contrarian, but usually it helps not to argue against yourself while being a contrarian. Unless you're also being contrary to your contrarian stance!

It's true that Nature works on other planets, but from what actual evidence we've seen, other planets are barren and frozen deserts or burnt cinders of rock or highly radiated.

And we know of life on this planet (called "extremophiles" ) that can live in conditions that would kill us. In addition, scientists are finding planets that might resemble Earth.

If there were life, like a mold or something, it'd be visible from earth with a telescope.

I'm afraid not. Current telescopes can't even see exoplanets directly, let alone what might be on them. Scientists discover exoplanets either by seeing it dim its star as it orbits in front of the star, or by detecting the jiggle of the star caused by the gravitational pull of a planet (or planets) orbiting around it.

Once they know an exoplanet exists, they can use techniques like viewing it in another light spectrum to analyze its atmospheric make-up...but they certainly can't view its surface.

If life isn't rare, why wouldn't it be everywhere?

Life may well be rare. Rare doesn't mean unique to Earth. The universe is a big place. Even if there were life on a trillion planets, it would be exceedingly rare and we may never find it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Here you go the first laboratory experiment to verify evolution via natural selection using bacteria at high temperature:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18761

So evolution has never been shown to take place in a lab aye?

Nobody's questioning evolution here. We're talking about the ORIGIN of life, making it spontaneously happen in a lab vs. injecting DNA into an existing cell.

 

[Denny Crane]

The weak standard was to defend "might." That's easy and I successfully defended that: anything might be.



Again, you asked for evidence that life could be different from us. You've given a nice example of such evidence. There could be silicon-based life, as the biology and chemistry show that it's a viable possibility. I never said there was evidence that such life does exist. This started with me pointing out that a planet does not have to a 100% carbon copy of Earth for it to possibly harbour life. You asked what evidence there is that life COULD be any different from us. And then you, yourself, admitted such evidence.

I realize you're arguing just to be contrarian, but usually it helps not to argue against yourself while being a contrarian. Unless you're also being contrary to your contrarian stance!



And we know of life on this planet (called "extremophiles" ) that can live in conditions that would kill us. In addition, scientists are finding planets that might resemble Earth.



I'm afraid not. Current telescopes can't even see exoplanets directly, let alone what might be on them. Scientists discover exoplanets either by seeing it dim its star as it orbits in front of the star, or by detecting the jiggle of the star caused by the gravitational pull of a planet (or planets) orbiting around it.

Once they know an exoplanet exists, they can use techniques like viewing it in another light spectrum to analyze its atmospheric make-up...but they certainly can't view its surface.



Life may well be rare. Rare doesn't mean unique to Earth. The universe is a big place. Even if there were life on a trillion planets, it would be exceedingly rare and we may never find it.

You italicized "could be" - there could be God, too, and based on every bit of evidence you've produced so far.

Extremophiles are a non-sequitur. They're the result of evolution, not the only species on some frozen desert of a planet.

 

[Denny Crane]

there have been multiple suspect (it is still hard to tell with current technology) earth-like planets found just around nearby stars including one that appears to be covered with liquid water.




well at least you should be able to smell it with a smelloscope. give me a break.




"isn't rare" is subjective. there are at least 30 sextillion (3 x 10^22) stars just in the visible universe (which may be only a tiny fraction of what exists if inflationary theory is correct). if only .000000000001% of those contained planets or moons with life, life would still exist in a trillion places.



for all we know life may exist everywhere it can possibly exist.

Due to evolution, life should exist EVERYWHERE and adapt to whatever conditions. The fittest survive.

You can bring up those big numbers, 3x10^22, but if the chance of a habitat suitable for life is 1/3x10^24, we're REALLY lucky to exist at all. And that's how I see it until there's actual evidence to the contrary.

When I say to the contrary, a single cell not of the same origin as us, and I would believe there is life pretty much everywhere.

 

[Minstrel]

You italicized "could be" - there could be God, too

While there could be a god, there's no evidence of a god. There is evidence that life could be different from us.

Extremophiles are a non-sequitur. They're the result of evolution, not the only species on some frozen desert of a planet.

You're the one creating non-sequitors. Who said anything about "only species?" Life that resembles extremophiles here could evolve on a very different type of planet, one that would be a hostile environment to us. Other life doesn't have to look like humans or have the same capacities as humans. Extremophiles illustrate that life can exist in a variety of environments.

 

[barfo]

Due to evolution, life should exist EVERYWHERE and adapt to whatever conditions. The fittest survive.

That doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the fittest aren't fit enough, and nothing survives.
Move this planet somewhere between Mercury and the Sun, and probably all life on the planet ceases to exist once the oceans have completely boiled off.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

While there could be a god, there's no evidence of a god. There is evidence that life could be different from us.



You're the one creating non-sequitors. Who said anything about "only species?" Life that resembles extremophiles here could evolve on a very different type of planet, one that would be a hostile environment to us. Other life doesn't have to look like humans or have the same capacities as humans. Extremophiles illustrate that life can exist in a variety of environments.

Extremophiles illustrate that life can evolve to exist in a variety of environments.

And there is no evidence life could be different from us.

 

[Denny Crane]

That doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the fittest aren't fit enough, and nothing survives.
Move this planet somewhere between Mercury and the Sun, and probably all life on the planet ceases to exist once the oceans have completely boiled off.

barfo

Move it 1% closer to the sun (or further away) and you get the same result. Closer and the oceans boil away, further and they freeze over.

 

[Minstrel]

And there is no evidence life could be different from us.

Sure there is. You provided some. I am enchanted by your arguing style though: "There is no evidence that X is possible. Biology shows that X could happen. There is no evidence that X is possible." I don't know whether you're trying to confuse others or yourself.

 

[barfo]

Move it 1% closer to the sun (or further away) and you get the same result.

I don't think that's true. The difference between perihelion and aphelion is about 3% currently, and that's historically low.

barfo