Another religion thread!

[barfo]

I never said Science claimed it has the case that life exists elsewhere

You certainly strongly implied that it did:

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

, just that scientists act like it's a foregone conclusion without such evidence. Religious in nature, in fact.

So what? There are scientists who believe in God, too. That doesn't say anything about science, just says something about those particular scientists.

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.

Ok, that guy sounds like a believer. So what? As the prophet Michael Jackson once said, "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl".

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.

This one sounds a little more like an enthusiast than a man of faith, but even if he is a true believer, who gives a rat's ass, really. Like I say, there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who have religious beliefs. That doesn't mean science claims god exists. You have to separate science from scientists. Scientists are arguably human and at times act like other humans.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

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

I am still not confusing the two, your protestations to the contrary withstanding.

Life, ONCE IT EXISTS (abiogenesis), adapts to all sorts of harsh environments (evolution). If abiogenesis occurs, evolution should do its thing, as we see in nature here on earth. Those extremophiles are pretty good evidence that life would adapt to whatever conditions.

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

That isn't evidence of life elsewhere. It's only evidence that under incredibly rare circumstances, life will spawn and evolve.

Going around in circles...

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

As barfo said, there's probability Paul Allen will give him the blazers, but the real chance is zero.

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.

To roughly quote Fermi, "Where is it?"

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.

There is nothing intrinsically undetectable about God, either. There are eye witnesses, and that's just the start of that road you don't want to go down.

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

It's not nonsense. It debunks the rare earth theory. Given how robust life is on earth, there would be no reason to expect it not to be the same elsewhere. But only if it does exist elsewhere.

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

I never said it would exist absolutely everywhere. The evidence is to the contrary - it doesn't exist on the moon, as you said. But as I said, there'd be no reason to expect life to be a result of the perfect storm.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

It is religious faith because it's unseen and not known. Noah built an ark, these guys build SETI.

 

[barfo]

It is religious faith because it's unseen and not known. Noah built an ark, these guys build SETI.

How does SETI differ from any other scientific instrument? Is it also religion to be using the large hadron collider to look for the Higgs Boson? After all, you can't see or touch the Higgs Boson, and there's no evidence for it, just theoretical supposition.

And if those religious fellows at CERN do find the Higgs Boson, will they suddenly become scientists? Or will they retroactively become scientists? Or will they continue to be on a religious quest, even though they have physical evidence?

You seem deeply confused about the nature of science. It's ok to look for things that might turn out not to be there. It's ok to do experiments. It's even ok to fail. Science doesn't require scientists to be right about everything every time.

You don't like SETI for some weird reason, I get it. But that doesn't mean it is a religion.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

I am still not confusing the two, your protestations to the contrary withstanding.

Life, ONCE IT EXISTS (abiogenesis), adapts to all sorts of harsh environments (evolution). If abiogenesis occurs, evolution should do its thing, as we see in nature here on earth. Those extremophiles are pretty good evidence that life would adapt to whatever conditions.

life has to START before it can evolve. evolution (currently) says nothing about the probability of life STARTING elsewhere in the universe. you have been saying it does, freely interchanging the domains of evolution and abiogenesis.

That isn't evidence of life elsewhere. It's only evidence that under incredibly rare circumstances, life will spawn and evolve.

"incredibly rare circumstances" is your hypothesis, not fact. not many scientists would agree with you.

There is nothing intrinsically undetectable about God, either.

unless you define him that way, which you certainly did to make your comparison.

There are eye witnesses, and that's just the start of that road you don't want to go down.

trying to set a new low for credibility level on scientific topics?

It's not nonsense. It debunks the rare earth theory. Given how robust life is on earth, there would be no reason to expect it not to be the same elsewhere. But only if it does exist elsewhere.

your notion that the fact that the moon is lifeless indicates life is improbable everywhere else is beyond silly. you're insulting your own intelligence.

 

[barfo]

As barfo said, there's probability Paul Allen will give him the blazers, but the real chance is zero.

No, that's not correct. The chance is non-zero. It is very very small, but there is a difference between a very very small number and zero.

barfo

 

[crowTrobot]

It is religious faith because it's unseen and not known.

again science doesn't have to "believe" there is life elsewhere to be validated in looking for it. they just have to think it's a reasonable probability, and they have good reason to think that.

science happens to be in the business of theorizing about and exploring the unseen/unknown. you happen to have a politically-based problem with spending funds on that for some reason.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, that's not correct. The chance is non-zero. It is very very small, but there is a difference between a very very small number and zero.

barfo

Ridiculously small.

 

[barfo]

Ridiculously small.

That's what she said.

Absurdly, ridiculously, pathetically small. But non-zero.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

life has to START before it can evolve. evolution (currently) says nothing the probability of life STARTING elsewhere in the universe. you have been saying it does, freely interchanging the domains of evolution and abiogenesis.

I've said no such thing. My only assumption is that IF life STARTs, evolution will kick in and just like on earth, life would flourish.

Where is the freely interchanging of the domains here? The whole issue is whether it STARTs. Evolution is what will make it obvious that it was started at some point.

"incredibly rare circumstances" is your hypothesis, not fact. not many scientists would agree with you.

Incredibly rare circumstances is all we have to go on. "Where is it?"

unless you define him that way, which you certainly did to make your comparison.

I only equate God to this argument because you argue the unseeable and unknowable as if it's fact. So do those who aren't in the "not many scientists" category. So do religious people.

trying to set a new low for credibility level on scientific topics?

No, just pointing out flimsy evidence that is as flimsy as "life exists elsewhere."

your notion that the fact that the moon is lifeless indicates life is improbable everywhere else is beyond silly. you're insulting your own intelligence.

My notion is that everywhere else we look is lifeless. The moon only indicates that IF we found life somewhere else, that it's not going to be everywhere, but it would be so common we'd be finding it most places we look.

Life has to start, period. Once it does, it will evolve to live in Mono Lake, very high temperatures, frigid temperatures, pressures that would crush a man in a nanosecond, the poisonous atmosphere of the early earth, and so on. There's the evidence you find on earth that says "if life started on Mars, it would adapt."

 

[Denny Crane]

That's what she said.

Absurdly, ridiculously, pathetically small. But non-zero.

barfo

Right. 1/3*10^24 is pathetically small, but non-zero.

 

[Denny Crane]

again science doesn't have to "believe" there is life elsewhere to be validated in looking for it. they just have to think it's a reasonable probability, and they have good reason to think that.

science happens to be in the business of theorizing about and exploring the unseen/unknown. you happen to have a politically-based problem with spending funds on that for some reason.

There's a difference between scientists saying, "it sure seems like there should be life, based upon probability" and "I'm sure there is" or "I believe there is."

I have no problem with spending funds sending robots out to anywhere and everywhere to look for life. I have no problem, really, with SETI. I do think that the best use of our money, by far, has been to look back down at earth, but there's room for R&D type things.

I do have a problem spending funds on astrobiologists wasting time on their computers with 3D programs rendering what alien life supposedly looks like. That kind of thing is the realm of video game companies (it's fantasy, not science).

 

[barfo]

Right. 1/3*10^24 is pathetically small, but non-zero.

Yes, assuming you mean 1/(3*10^24) and not (1/3)*10^24. Remind me what that number is supposed to represent?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, assuming you mean 1/(3*10^24) and not (1/3)*10^24. Remind me what that number is supposed to represent?

barfo

1/(3*10^24) is correct.

It is a number that illustrates how life can be rare, in spite of the big number of stars and planets that are assumed to make up the universe.

 

[barfo]

I've said no such thing. My only assumption is that IF life STARTs, evolution will kick in and just like on earth, life would flourish.

Not necessarily. The climate could be so harsh that life is either extinguished completely, or barely survives. You are assuming that life elsewhere will behave like - and have the advantages of - life here on earth. There's no basis for those assumptions.

Incredibly rare circumstances is all we have to go on. "Where is it?"

Considering our ability to see out there is very very limited, maybe we just haven't seen it yet. Where is the Higgs Boson?

I only equate God to this argument because you argue the unseeable and unknowable as if it's fact. So do those who aren't in the "not many scientists" category. So do religious people.

I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that it is a fact that there is life on other planets.

My notion is that everywhere else we look is lifeless.

We really haven't looked very many places. Do you quit looking for your car keys if they aren't in the first couple places you look? They can't be seen, so they must not exist.

The moon only indicates that IF we found life somewhere else, that it's not going to be everywhere, but it would be so common we'd be finding it most places we look.

The moon does not indicate anything about how life would be so common we'd be finding it most places we look. If anything it indicates the opposite.

Life has to start, period. Once it does, it will evolve to live in Mono Lake, very high temperatures, frigid temperatures, pressures that would crush a man in a nanosecond, the poisonous atmosphere of the early earth, and so on. There's the evidence you find on earth that says "if life started on Mars, it would adapt."

Sure, that's a possibility. Another possibility is that life elsewhere fails to adapt.

barfo

 

[barfo]

1/(3*10^24) is correct.

It is a number that illustrates how life can be rare, in spite of the big number of stars and planets that are assumed to make up the universe.

How does it illustrate that?

15.34912205555...

That's the number that illustrates a red-haired supermodel will sleep with me tonight.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I do have a problem spending funds on astrobiologists wasting time on their computers with 3D programs rendering what alien life supposedly looks like. That kind of thing is the realm of video game companies (it's fantasy, not science).

If they are just being silly (creating scary monsters) then I agree. If they are making an honest attempt at figuring out what life forms could be supported on a planet with environmental conditions X, Y, and Z, then I see nothing wrong with it. But since this is the first I've heard of it I don't really know what you are talking about. Although I'm sure you have a link.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

How does it illustrate that?

15.34912205555...

That's the number that illustrates a red-haired supermodel will sleep with me tonight.

barfo

The probability argument is hollow.

One view is that there are 3*10^22 possible places for life, so it's very likely it exists.

This excludes the chance that life does start, and other factors (like can it exist near binary stars? That's 60% of all star systems right there).

If the chance that conditions for life is 1/(3*10^24), the actual probability is 1:100. The actual chance may be more like 1:10^100000000000000, and it's a freaking miracle that life even started on Earth. That's the only way to look at it, unless there is life found elsewhere.

 

[barfo]

The probability argument is hollow.

I assume you mean the one you are about to make.

One view is that there are 3*10^22 possible places for life, so it's very likely it exists.

This excludes the chance that life does start, and other factors (like can it exist near binary stars? That's 60% of all star systems right there).

If the chance that conditions for life is 1/(3*10^24), the actual probability is 1:100. The actual chance may be more like 1:10^100000000000000, and it's a freaking miracle that life even started on Earth. That's the only way to look at it, unless there is life found elsewhere.

I have no idea what you mean by "The actual chance may be more like 1:10^100000000000000". Seems like you are just making up numbers to suit your argument, which puts the lie to your claim "That's the only way to look at it."

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Denny Crane]

I assume you mean the one you are about to make.



I have no idea what you mean by "The actual chance may be more like 1:10^100000000000000". Seems like you are just making up numbers to suit your argument, which puts the lie to your claim "That's the only way to look at it."

barfo

I'm pointing out the flaw in the "universe is so big, life must exist" argument. The only way to look at it argument is why scientists repeat experiments done by other scientists.

 

[barfo]

I'm pointing out the flaw in the "universe is so big, life must exist" argument.

Ok. I'm not arguing for that position, myself. I don't have a position on life outside earth. It might exist, it might not. Maybe they'll find out before I die, maybe not.

The only way to look at it argument is why scientists repeat experiments done by other scientists.

No idea what you mean by that. Are you saying that SETI should be repeated in case the first experiment was flawed?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Ok. I'm not arguing for that position, myself. I don't have a position on life outside earth. It might exist, it might not. Maybe they'll find out before I die, maybe not.

If you were, I'd ask, "What are the odds life starts on a planet suitable for life?"

No idea what you mean by that. Are you saying that SETI should be repeated in case the first experiment was flawed?

barfo

No. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical so they repeat experimental results instead of just accepting what others tell them is true.

 

[barfo]

If you were, I'd ask, "What are the odds life starts on a planet suitable for life?"

And I'd only be able to give you an educated guess, because obviously no one knows the true odds. And obviously, some will make different estimates than others.

No. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical so they repeat experimental results instead of just accepting what others tell them is true.

No idea what you are talking about still. Who is just accepting what others tell them, and what experiments should be repeated?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

And I'd only be able to give you an educated guess, because obviously no one knows the true odds. And obviously, some will make different estimates than others.

Seen the Drake Equation? When I put in my estimates, I get 1.65e-7

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

Use 100B
50%
.33 <---- I figure this one to be MUCH lower.
.001%
.001%
100%
1/100,000

No idea what you are talking about still. Who is just accepting what others tell them, and what experiments should be repeated?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Seen the Drake Equation? When I put in my estimates, I get 1.65e-7

Yeah, so? Is there some reason I should take your assumptions more seriously than anyone elses?

Obviously the Drake equation can lead to a very wide range of outcomes depending on what your assumptions are.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, so? Is there some reason I should take your assumptions more seriously than anyone elses?

Obviously the Drake equation can lead to a very wide range of outcomes depending on what your assumptions are.

barfo

The more "religious" astrobiologist/SETI types (Carl Sagen, for one) comes up with 10,000 planets with intelligent life, CURRENTLY, just in the Milky Way. If you don't change anything on that calculator, you get 1000.

 

[barfo]

The more "religious" astrobiologist/SETI types (Carl Sagen, for one) comes up with 10,000 planets with intelligent life, CURRENTLY, just in the Milky Way. If you don't change anything on that calculator, you get 1000.

Didn't Sagan croak? I saw him talk once, in the mid-70s.
Anyway, like I say, what comes out depends upon what goes in, and none of us know the right input.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

...
Rare Earth Calculator broken link

 

[Denny Crane]

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

N* is the number of stars in the Milky Way. This number is not well-estimated, because the Milky Way's mass is not well estimated. Moreover, there is little information about the number of very small stars. N* is at least 100 billion, and may be as high as 500 billion, if there are many low visibility stars.

ne is the average number of planets in a star's habitable zone. This zone is fairly narrow, because constrained by the requirement that the average planetary temperature be consistent with water remaining liquid throughout the time required for complex life to evolve. Thus ne = 1 is a likely upper bound.

We assume

. The Rare Earth hypothesis can then be viewed as asserting that the product of the other nine Rare Earth equation factors listed below, which are all fractions, is no greater than 10−10 and could plausibly be as small as 10−12. In the latter case, N could be as small as 0 or 1. Ward and Brownlee do not actually calculate the value of N, because the numerical values of quite a few of the factors below can only be conjectured. They cannot be estimated simply because we have but one data point: the Earth, a rocky planet orbiting a G2 star in a quiet suburb of a large barred spiral galaxy, and the home of the only intelligent species we know, namely ourselves.

fg is the fraction of stars in the galactic habitable zone (Ward, Brownlee, and Gonzalez estimate this factor as 0.1 [7]).

fp is the fraction of stars in the Milky Way with planets.

fpm is the fraction of planets that are rocky ("metallic") rather than gaseous.

fi is the fraction of habitable planets where microbial life arises. Ward and Brownlee believe this fraction is unlikely to be small.

fc is the fraction of planets where complex life evolves. For 80% of the time since microbial life first appeared on the Earth, there was only bacterial life. Hence Ward and Brownlee argue that this fraction may be very small.

fl is the fraction of the total lifespan of a planet during which complex life is present. Complex life cannot endure indefinitely, because the energy put out by the sort of star that allows complex life to emerge gradually rises, and the central star eventually becomes a red giant, engulfing all planets in the planetary habitable zone. Also, given enough time, a catastrophic extinction of all complex life becomes ever more likely.

fm is the fraction of habitable planets with a large moon. If the giant impact theory of the Moon's origin is correct, this fraction is small.

fj is the fraction of planetary systems with large Jovian planets. This fraction could be large.

fme is the fraction of planets with a sufficiently low number of extinction events. Ward and Brownlee argue that the low number of such events the Earth has experienced since the Cambrian explosion may be unusual, in which case this fraction would be small.