Another religion thread!

[Denny Crane]

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.

I provided no evidence of any other life form. There is no such life form, just as alchemists don't change lead into gold. It's a fantasy, hence my comment about God.

 

[Minstrel]

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.

It's not 1%, but there is a "Goldilocks zone" for having open oceans of liquid water. Of course, even that is no hard-and-fast restriction on the possibility of life. Europa, a moon of Jupiter, is well outside the "Goldilocks zone" but is believed to have an ocean of liquid water beneath an ice crust and that ocean is likely to resemble the deep ocean environment on Earth. Scientists think that they may find life in that, once they have the technology to properly and safely investigate.

 

[Minstrel]

I provided no evidence of any other life form..

That isn't what we were talking about, silly. We were talking about whether life could be different from humans, and you provided evidence of that. Of course, we also have plenty of evidence in the diversity of life on Earth that shows that life can function differently from us.

As a flim-flam man, you just don't talk fast enough.

 

[Denny Crane]

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

barfo

The earth is no closer than 91.4M miles and no further than 94.5M miles away from the sun in its slightly elliptical orbit. The difference is less than 1/30th of the closest or furthest distance.

 

[Denny Crane]

That isn't what we were talking about, silly. We were talking about whether life could be different from humans, and you provided evidence of that. Of course, we also have plenty of evidence in the diversity of life on Earth that shows that life can function differently from us.

As a flim-flam man, you just don't talk fast enough.

Could be God exists.

See it yet?

 

[barfo]

There is no such life form, just as alchemists don't change lead into gold. It's a fantasy, hence my comment about God.

It's unclear if anyone has turned lead into gold, but it is entirely possible theoretically. Turning bismuth into gold has been done, 30 years ago.

barfo

 

[barfo]

The earth is no closer than 91.4M miles and no further than 94.5M miles away from the sun in its slightly elliptical orbit. The difference is less than 1/30th of the closest or furthest distance.

Right, and 1/30th is bigger than 1%. In fact it is a lot like 3%.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Could be God exists.

I already agreed that it could. As I patiently explained, there's evidence that life can be different from humans, whereas there's no evidence that god exists.

See it yet?

I see that crucial difference, yes.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's unclear if anyone has turned lead into gold, but it is entirely possible theoretically. Turning bismuth into gold has been done, 30 years ago.

barfo

Bismuth isn't lead.

 

[Denny Crane]

I already agreed that it could. As I patiently explained, there's evidence that life can be different from humans, whereas there's no evidence that god exists.



I see that crucial difference, yes.

There is evidence life can be different from humans, but that's something of a strawman. Life as we know it is not just humans.

 

[barfo]

Bismuth isn't lead.

Really? Gosh, I thought it was.
If you understand how bismuth was turned into gold, you'll see that lead to gold can be done as well.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

There is evidence life can be different from humans

I'm glad you now agree with that, after trying to claim otherwise in several previous posts.

but that's something of a strawman. Life as we know it is not just humans.

That's the entire point. Life as we know it is not just humans, so a planet exactly like the homeland of humans is not necessary for life. Why? Because life as we know it is not just humans.

So, if by "strawman" you mean "a very germane point to whether life may exist elsewhere," then we're completely in agreement.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm glad you now agree with that, after trying to claim otherwise in several previous posts.



That's the entire point. Life as we know it is not just humans, so a planet exactly like the homeland of humans is not necessary for life. Why? Because life as we know it is not just humans.

So, if by "strawman" you mean "a very germane point to whether life may exist elsewhere," then we're completely in agreement.

I claimed there is no silicon based life, you changed the subject to life different from humans which is not the same thing as life different from carbon based life.

By strawman, I mean changing the argument as you did and arguing against it.

I don't at all suggest that a planet needs to support humans to support life. If you visited the earth 200M years ago, there weren't any humans.

 

[Minstrel]

I claimed there is no silicon based life, you changed the subject to life different from humans which is not the same thing as life different from carbon based life.

Sequence of events:

1. You tried to constrain the places life could exist to planets identical to Earth (by listing a series of characteristics about Earth) in an effort to show how unlikely it is that life could exist elsewhere
2. I pointed out that considering life could be different from humans, a planet didn't need to be identical to Earth
3. You asked me for evidence that life could be different from humans
4. I pointed out that chemistry and biology show that there are other biologically viable forms life could take
5. You mentioned one of them--silicon-based life
6. You then forgot what you were arguing and returned to saying there's no evidence that life can be different than humans
7. I explained that you're confusing yourself and have already admitted the evidence exists
8. You became flustered and fired off the sequence of non-sequitors quoted above

We on the same page now?

I don't at all suggest that a planet needs to support humans to support life.

Strange then that you used Earth's characteristics as the requirements for life!

 

[Denny Crane]

Sequence of events:

1. You tried to constrain the places life could exist to planets identical to Earth (by listing a series of characteristics about Earth) in an effort to show how unlikely it is that life could exist elsewhere
2. I pointed out that considering life could be different from humans, a planet didn't need to be identical to Earth
3. You asked me for evidence that life could be different from humans
4. I pointed out that chemistry and biology show that there are other biologically viable forms life could take
5. You mentioned one of them--silicon-based life
6. You then forgot what you were arguing and returned to saying there's no evidence that life can be different than humans
7. I explained that you're confusing yourself and have already admitted the evidence exists
8. You became flustered and fired off the sequence of non-sequitors quoted above

We on the same page now?



Strange then that you used Earth's characteristics as the requirements for life!

I never asked for evidence life could be different from humans. Now you're being silly.

 

[crowTrobot]

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

you're confusing evolution and abiogenesis again.

also evolution does not say life should adapt to any possible conditions. it only says the best adapted have the best chance of surviving and reproducing. the chance may still be zero either way.

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.

it makes zero sense to have as a starting assumption that it's an extreme longshot that life should exist on earth. that is nothing more than typical human egocentrism. it's a very religious attitude in fact.

when you factor in the size of the universe it's not hard to make a statistical/philosophical case that our existence is more likely to be an indicator that life exists everywhere it can in the universe than that life on earth is highly improbable, and the most likely answer is in between the two extremes.

 

[Denny Crane]

Look at the evidence. Where we do have life, it diversifies to a huge degree and flourishes. Life has resisted mass extinction events. Life existed in poisonous environments, extreme cold and heat.

No, I don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution.

My position is quite scientific. A healthy dose of skepticism until there's evidence to support some unproven hypothesis. I find the actual religious attitude to be the one that believes in something without a shred of evidence to support it (e.g. life elsewhere).

As I've repeatedly said, if we find a single cell that's not of this world, I would wholly accept the idea that life is prevalent virtually everywhere. If it were, though, we'd be able to see it from earth with a telescope - on the moon, on mars, etc.

 

[crowTrobot]

Look at the evidence. Where we do have life, it diversifies to a huge degree and flourishes. Life has resisted mass extinction events. Life existed in poisonous environments, extreme cold and heat.

No, I don't confuse abiogenesis with evolution.

you are doing just that. as far as we know the reason life diversifies (evolution) may have little to do with how it originiated (abiogenesis). the fact that life diversifies and adapts on earth doesn't say anything about the odds of it originating elsewhere. all you can say is it should be expected to adapt if/when it does originate.

evolution and abiogenesis COULD be related, but at this point we don't know that.

My position is quite scientific. A healthy dose of skepticism until there's evidence to support some unproven hypothesis.

you're not just being skeptical. you are effectively stating your own hypothesis that life on earth was an improbable accident. it's one thing to be agnostic on the subject, but you are taking the position that there is a reason (evidence) to hold as a starting assumption that life is improbable - until proven otherwise. you are doing the very thing you accuse scientists of doing.

I find the actual religious attitude to be the one that believes in something without a shred of evidence to support it (e.g. life elsewhere).

there IS evidence and scientists try to make an objective judgement of probability based on what they know. they do not "believe" anything without evidence. by taking the position that life is necessarily improbable until proven otherwise you are in fact the one who is doing that.

As I've repeatedly said, if we find a single cell that's not of this world, I would wholly accept the idea that life is prevalent virtually everywhere. If it were, though, we'd be able to see it from earth with a telescope - on the moon, on mars, etc.

if life requires certain conditions why would you expect it to be prevelant virtually everwhere? your all or nothing mentality is silly. life could exist in trillons of places in the universe and we may never have the technology to detect it.

 

[Denny Crane]

abiogenesis -> life -> reproduction -> copy errors -> diversity -> evolution

I am NOT in any way confusing the two.

You say there is evidence, but there isn't. There is only theoretical probabilities, which I've countered (1/3^24). I make no assumptions other than nature and physics work the same everywhere (but inside black holes).

Take a good look at your last sentence. Replace "life" with "God" and you can see how religious your statement is.

"God could exist in trillions of places in the universe and we may never have the technology to detect Him." You are espousing the belief in something that cannot be seen or known.

I'm not at all arguing God exists, because I am dubious, at best, that he does.

My "all or nothing" view is not hard to understand. If life exists in 2 places, it exists in 3, 4, ... n.

 

[barfo]

"God could exist in trillions of places in the universe and we may never have the technology to detect Him." You are espousing the belief in something that cannot be seen or known.

No, that's insane. There's a big difference between saying "X could exist" and "I have faith that X exists".

My "all or nothing" view is not hard to understand. If life exists in 2 places, it exists in 3, 4, ... n.

No one is claiming life exists in exactly two places. But your claim that if it exists more than one place, it must exist everyplace, is completely without logic.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No, that's insane. There's a big difference between saying "X could exist" and "I have faith that X exists".

Nice try, but I didn't say that.

No one is claiming life exists in exactly two places. But your claim that if it exists more than one place, it must exist everyplace, is completely without logic.

barfo

I'm not suggesting it must exist in exactly two places. Again, nice try. I said if it exists in at least 2 places, I would agree it's likely it exists in trillions.

 

[barfo]

Nice try, but I didn't say that.

Actually, you said exactly that. You made up a quote for him about the possibility of god existing, and then said that that meant that he believed in something that could not be seen.
If that's not what you meant you should correct your words, because it is most certainly what you said.

I'm not suggesting it must exist in exactly two places. Again, nice try.

What part of "no one" do you not understand? If I say no one suggests that, that includes you.

I said if it exists in at least 2 places, I would agree it's likely it exists in trillions.

I'm not sure who you'd be agreeing with on that. Anyway, the statement I was objecting to was "As I've repeatedly said, if we find a single cell that's not of this world, I would wholly accept the idea that life is prevalent virtually everywhere." There's actually a big difference between trillions of places and virtually everywhere.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, you said exactly that. You made up a quote for him about the possibility of god existing, and then said that that meant that he believed in something that could not be seen.
If that's not what you meant you should correct your words, because it is most certainly what you said.



What part of "no one" do you not understand? If I say no one suggests that, that includes you.



I'm not sure who you'd be agreeing with on that. Anyway, the statement I was objecting to was "As I've repeatedly said, if we find a single cell that's not of this world, I would wholly accept the idea that life is prevalent virtually everywhere." There's actually a big difference between trillions of places and virtually everywhere.

barfo

I replaced "life" with "God" in his sentence. You added words, like Faith. Which is interesting, because if believing in something you can't see, know, or prove, isn't Faith, what is it?

Who else said anything about "in just two places?" You, and only you.

It's up to science to provide proof or very strong evidence of its claims. Otherwise it's as much hooey as Religion. Get it?

 

[barfo]

I replaced "life" with "God" in his sentence. You added words, like Faith. Which is interesting, because if believing in something you can't see, know, or prove, isn't Faith, what is it?

It is faith. But, as I said, there is a difference between admitting the possibility of something, and believing in that something.
There is a possibility that Paul Allen will leave the Blazers to me when he dies. However, I do not believe it will happen. I do not have faith that it will happen. It is merely a possibility. [A very small one].

Who else said anything about "in just two places?" You, and only you.

You don't have a point here, do you?

It's up to science to provide proof or very strong evidence of its claims. Otherwise it's as much hooey as Religion. Get it?

What claims are you talking about here? Be specific.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

It is faith.

Tada!

Thank you.

What claims are you talking about here? Be specific.

barfo

That life exists in at least two places (one earth, another anywhere else)...

There are 8 planets and 166 moons in the solar system, or 174 places to look for life. Count pluto and it's moons and you have 178. Based upon what we have verified to date, the odds of life are 1:178. If you want to play that game.

 

[barfo]

Tada!

Thank you.

Yes, believing in something you have no evidence exists is indeed faith.
Unfortunately for your argument, science doesn't involve a belief in such things.

That life exists in at least two places (one earth, another anywhere else)...

There are 8 planets and 166 moons in the solar system, or 174 places to look for life. Count pluto and it's moons and you have 178. Based upon what we have verified to date, the odds of life are 1:178. If you want to play that game.

Ok, where has science claimed that it is the case that life exists elsewhere? I think you are arguing against a strawman here.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You are serving up softballs and strawmen. I never said Science claimed it has the case that life exists elsewhere, just that scientists act like it's a foregone conclusion without such evidence. Religious in nature, in fact.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zv.html

I believe that life exists beyond the Earth. I believe that intelligent life must exist somewhere in the vast universe of stars and galaxies. I recognize that there is, as yet, no evidence to support this belief of mine.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0331_030401_setishostak.html

Aliens "Absolutely" Exist, SETI Astronomer Believes

Many of the great hoaxes of the past 50 years have involved reports of UFOs, extraterrestrial visitors, and contact with distant space civilizations.

Even on the week of April Fools' Day, however, Seth Shostak is seriously listening to the stars. As a senior astronomer at the SETI Institute, Shostak spends endless hours analyzing bursts of electronic noise drifting through the cosmos, captured by radio telescopes. SETI stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

He and his colleagues have never found proof anyone…or anything… "up there" is trying to make contact. He readily accepts the jokes that shower down on his efforts. But when this smiling, easygoing man ambles into my studio, he is clearly out to make believers of us all.

Tom Foreman: You believe something is out there?

Seth Shostak: Oh, absolutely! The usual assumption is they're some sort of soft, squishy aliens like you see in the movies—just a little more advanced than we are so that we can find them. But the galaxy is two or three times that age, so there are going to be some societies out there that are millions of years, maybe more, beyond ours. So they may have proceeded beyond biology—maybe they've invented thinking machines and it could be that what we first find is something that's artificially constructed.

 

[crowTrobot]

abiogenesis -> life -> reproduction -> copy errors -> diversity -> evolution

I am NOT in any way confusing the two.

your statement "Due to evolution, life should exist EVERYWHERE (in the universe)" is confusing the concepts.

You say there is evidence, but there isn't.

you mean there isn't PROOF. there is plenty of evidence, starting with life on earth itself. going in circles here.

There is only theoretical probabilities, which I've countered (1/3^24).

the theoretical probabilities scientists come up with are based on evidence. you pulling a number out of thin air doesn't counter anything.

"God could exist in trillions of places in the universe and we may never have the technology to detect Him." You are espousing the belief in something that cannot be seen or known.

i'm not espousing belief in anything other than the fact that the moon is lifeless isn't evidence that it's improbable life exists elsewhere.

and your comparison is silly anyway. unlike the standard definition of "god" there is nothing intrinsically undetectable about other life. whether we are able to detect it or not depends on how far technology is able to progress. it is not a scientific crime to postulate something that is in principal provable in the future even though it might not be at present. also we know life CAN exist elsewhere because it does on earth, we know the elements of life are common wherever there are second generation or later stars, and we know there statistically have to be other earth-like planets, possiblity an enromous number of them. that is evidence. no such evidence exists for god.

My "all or nothing" view is not hard to understand. If life exists in 2 places, it exists in 3, 4, ... n.

that's like saying if 1+ 1 =2 it should = 3, 4...n
it's nonense.

life can only exist where it can exist. we have no reason to expect it to exist where it can't : )

 

[crowTrobot]

There are 8 planets and 166 moons in the solar system, or 174 places to look for life. Count pluto and it's moons and you have 178. Based upon what we have verified to date, the odds of life are 1:178. If you want to play that game.

we aren't remotely close to "verifying" that life does not exist elsewhere in solar system. that's ludicrous.

 

[crowTrobot]

You are serving up softballs and strawmen. I never said Science claimed it has the case that life exists elsewhere, just that scientists act like it's a foregone conclusion without such evidence. Religious in nature, in fact.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zv.html

I believe that life exists beyond the Earth. I believe that intelligent life must exist somewhere in the vast universe of stars and galaxies. I recognize that there is, as yet, no evidence to support this belief of mine.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0331_030401_setishostak.html

Aliens "Absolutely" Exist, SETI Astronomer Believes

Many of the great hoaxes of the past 50 years have involved reports of UFOs, extraterrestrial visitors, and contact with distant space civilizations.

Even on the week of April Fools' Day, however, Seth Shostak is seriously listening to the stars. As a senior astronomer at the SETI Institute, Shostak spends endless hours analyzing bursts of electronic noise drifting through the cosmos, captured by radio telescopes. SETI stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

He and his colleagues have never found proof anyone…or anything… "up there" is trying to make contact. He readily accepts the jokes that shower down on his efforts. But when this smiling, easygoing man ambles into my studio, he is clearly out to make believers of us all.

Tom Foreman: You believe something is out there?

Seth Shostak: Oh, absolutely! The usual assumption is they're some sort of soft, squishy aliens like you see in the movies—just a little more advanced than we are so that we can find them. But the galaxy is two or three times that age, so there are going to be some societies out there that are millions of years, maybe more, beyond ours. So they may have proceeded beyond biology—maybe they've invented thinking machines and it could be that what we first find is something that's artificially constructed.

bova is a sci fi writer.

seth shostak is taking the word believe to mean he thinks the evidence statistically indicates the probability is close enough to 100% to effectively be 100%. he may be wrong about that as individual scientists frequently are, but it is still nothing like religious faith.

was wondering how long it would take you to reference SETI. this whole arguement is really a political one to you, not scientific, which makes it tough to communicate.