Hubble takes the biggest image ever of Andromeda at 1.5 billion pixels

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
Well well. There's what you say he wrote, then you quote him saying something else.

:crazy:
Click to expand...
This is exactly what he said...

tlongII said:
And Creationists think life only exists on Earth. LOL.
Click to expand...

Where does it say, "mythical beings creating us or space unicorns spewing seem of life on our planet?"

So his statement is "Creationists are funny because they believe life only exists on earth". So with that same parameter, we can conclude that "It is equally laughable that Scientists belief life only exists on Earth".

Cut to the fucking chase Denny and stop posting like a fucking pansy!
 
MarAzul said:
Very true Denny. And at the same time we can not find it any where else.
This seems to be very similar to men knowing how to do 9 of 10 steps in creating life but
no one can do the final step. Logical men find a clue in this paradox.
Click to expand...

There are people on Oahu. If you don't have a boat to get there, how can you prove it? Your telescope can't see it because it's over the horizon.
 
Denny Crane said:
There are people on Oahu. If you don't have a boat to get there, how can you prove it? Your telescope can't see it because it's over the horizon.
Click to expand...
Wow wtf dude!!! Hahaha.

This is easy... There is physical evidence "right now" that there are people in Oahu. So regardless if you can see them from where you are, you can refer to the empirical evidence of what's already been observed.

The same applies for microbes, atoms or whatever the fuck you can't see with your own eyes
 
magnifier661 said:
This is exactly what he said...



Where does it say, "mythical beings creating us or space unicorns spewing seem of life on our planet?"

So his statement is "Creationists are funny because they believe life only exists on earth". So with that same parameter, we can conclude that "It is equally laughable that Scientists belief life only exists on Earth".

Cut to the fucking chase Denny and stop posting like a fucking pansy!
Click to expand...
Scientists don't gelieve life exists only here on earth. That's a logic error on your part.

If you want to prove TLong is wrong, prove all creationists believe life exists elsewhere.

You can't, game over. I cut to the chase, your misstatements and denials to the contrary.
 
Denny Crane said:
Scientists don't gelieve life exists only here on earth. That's a logic error on your part.

If you want to prove TLong is wrong, prove all creationists believe life exists elsewhere.

You can't, game over. I cut to the chase, your misstatements and denials to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Bullshit! Because if you choose to go down that road, then philosophical arguments can be used. That means you can use logical reasoning to belief something that hasn't been observed, which is clearly the case right now.

So if you say "a scientist believes there is life outside of earth, and hasn't observed that life, then they are basing that ideology on a philosophical reasoning"
 
And to go even further... thinking and empirical evidence are not compatible right? Science is what is observed or what can be tested repeatedly and observed by their peers. If you haven't observed life outside this universe, then how can you scientifically believe that there is life outside this universe?

Science of the gaps
 
They see life here living in harsh conditions, consistent with conditions they observe throughout the universe.

There is no philosophical bullshit, just a logical extension of fact, supported by lots of observed facts.

If scientists didn't believe in life, intelligent life, elsewhere, ther would be no SETI program.
 
Denny Crane said:
Your telescope can't see it because it's over the horizon.
Click to expand...

We can detect the signals of creation itself (big bang), but we can not detect the signals of another creature.
umm, not many logical deductions to make with these facts. Then of course, the lack of attention we receive from the vast hoard of potential other life,
supports the reason for our detection failure.
 
Denny Crane said:
They see life here living in harsh conditions, consistent with conditions they observe throughout the universe.

There is no philosophical bullshit, just a logical extension of fact, supported by lots of observed facts.

If scientists didn't believe in life, intelligent life, elsewhere, ther would be no SETI program.
Click to expand...
Wrong again... That is a theory that has not been credited... Meaning, its a good starting point, but we have no real evidence to date to support believing life exists outside the planet Earth. This is about as real as the multiverse theory. It could be as logical as you want to make it, but so far, the big bang theory is the one that stuck.

So a scientist that doesn't believe that there is life outside this planet is actually the most "logical" thinker in this argument. They will only "believe" what they see and can observe. Until we discover life outside this planet will be the day when that thinking is laughable. Much like the "flat earth believers" of today.
 
TLong is right.

http://creationwiki.org/Extraterrestrial_life

A careful read of the Bible does not allow for the existence of any race other than man. Indeed, the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of Jesus Christ that He came to take away the sin of the world.[18], and that He died once and only once to bring this about. The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven[19][20]--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or "cosmos".


Game over!
 
Scientists' beliefs are founded in fact and reason. If new facts are found that invalidate their belief, they change their belief accordingly.

What scientists believe and know as Truth are two very different ideas. You keep mixing them up trying to "prove" something.
 
Denny Crane said:
TLong is right.

http://creationwiki.org/Extraterrestrial_life

A careful read of the Bible does not allow for the existence of any race other than man. Indeed, the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of Jesus Christ that He came to take away the sin of the world.[18], and that He died once and only once to bring this about. The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven[19][20]--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or "cosmos".


Game over!
Click to expand...
Wow, you are seriously posting like a "blockhead".

The question is "Is it really laughable to believe that our planet is the only known life in this universe?"

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/solar-system/life-beyond-earth/

We all have our suppositions, our scenarios. The late astronomer Carl Sagan estimated that there are a million technological civilizations in our galaxy alone. His more conservative colleague Frank Drake offers the number 10,000. John Oro, a pioneering comet researcher, calculates that the Milky Way is sprinkled with a hundred civilizations. And finally there are skeptics like Ben Zuckerman, an astronomer at UCLA, who thinks we may as well be alone in this galaxy if not in the universe.

All the estimates are highly speculative. The fact is that there is no conclusive evidence of any life beyond Earth. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as various pundits have wisely noted. But still we don't have any solid knowledge about a single alien microbe, a solitary spore, much less the hubcap from a passing alien starship.
 
There you go again. "The question is..." (Some misquoted version of what TLong actually wrote.
 
Denny Crane said:
Scientists' beliefs are founded in fact and reason. If new facts are found that invalidate their belief, they change their belief accordingly.

What scientists believe and know as Truth are two very different ideas. You keep mixing them up trying to "prove" something.
Click to expand...
Read it, mags. You mixed the two again.
 
Denny Crane said:
There you go again. "The question is..." (Some misquoted version of what TLong actually wrote.
Click to expand...

Exactly! He made a statement!!!! LMAO!

He said "It is laughable that a group actually believes our planet is the only place for life in the entire universe"

It's okay Denny... You can take your ball. My job is done here.
 
magnifier661 said:
Exactly! He made a statement!!!! LMAO!

He said "It is laughable that a group actually believes our planet is the only place for life in the entire universe"

It's okay Denny... You can take your ball. My job is done here.
Click to expand...

He didn't say that. You really should quote him instead of putting different words in his mouth.

He wrote:

And Creationists think life only exists on Earth. LOL.

CREATIONwiki backs him up. Beyond a doubt.
 
Denny Crane said:
He didn't say that. You really should quote him instead of putting different words in his mouth.

He wrote:

And Creationists think life only exists on Earth. LOL.

CREATIONwiki backs him up. Beyond a doubt.
Click to expand...

Yep... He said the group is laughable because they believe life only exists on earth. So it would be equally laughable for a scientist to think life only exists on earth. It doesn't matter why they believe it. The statement is believing it is laughable. He just put in "Creationists" to generalize an entire group he's against. The funny thing is he was unaware that scientists share this same belief.

Take your ball Denny... It's going flat
 
Denny Crane said:
Scientists' beliefs are founded in fact and reason. If new facts are found that invalidate their belief, they change their belief accordingly.

What scientists believe and know as Truth are two very different ideas. You keep mixing them up trying to "prove" something.
Click to expand...

Scientists are men and women of all different opinions. There is not an official opinion on anything until the opinion becomes proven fact. Until then it is helte-skelter depending on funds available.

Right now many funds are available to find global warming effects and postulates.
 
Denny Crane said:
“My feeling is that the origin of life is a very improbable event. . . . If the origin of life is improbable, then few planets, even those in the habitable zone, will contain life.”
Click to expand...

Translation for the probability-challenged:
“My feeling is that the origin of life is a very improbable (1 of every million) event. . . . If the origin of life is improbable, then few (only quadrillions instead of quintillions of) planets, even those in the habitable zone, will contain life.”
 
I'm a skeptic. It seems to me that if life were everywhere, we'd easily detect it. We don't.

There is a lot of evidence that suggests it should arise all over the place, yet we can't find it in our own solar system.

Focus on earth-like planets in the goldilocks zone may be incomplete. The earth has a lot of other features, like plate tectonics and a magnetosphere and a huge moon in comparison to the planet size.

There's a decent sized list of stars within just 21 light years here: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/nearstar.html. If there were any advanced life on planets within 21 light years, it seems we'd be able to watch their TV shows and hear their radio broadcasts.

I have no reason to believe anything but the origin of life is an improbable event. If you put less optimistic numbers into the Drake equation, you come up with number of civilizations less than one.
 
Denny Crane said:
There's a decent sized list of stars within just 21 light years here: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/nearstar.html. If there were any advanced life on planets within 21 light years, it seems we'd be able to watch their TV shows and hear their radio broadcasts.
Click to expand...

I see only about a hundred stars on the list. Which part of "fewer than 1%" do you not understand? Why is it so hard to understand, "The probability could be 1 out a trillion, and there would still be quintillions of inhabited planets."

A scientist wouldn't describe it as "certain." He'd say "highly probable" and look at you, tongue in cheek, to discern whether your reaction shows any arithmetic skills.
 
jlprk said:
I see only about a hundred stars on the list. Which part of "fewer than 1%" do you not understand? Why is it so hard to understand, "The probability could be 1 out a trillion, and there would still be quintillions of inhabited planets."

A scientist wouldn't describe it as "certain." He'd say "highly probable" and look at you, tongue in cheek, to discern whether your reaction shows any arithmetic skills.
Click to expand...

It's not certain there is life elsewhere at all. Your arithmetic skills lack the possibility of NO POSSIBILITY. Like there's gazillions of stars and planets but the odds of one having a statue of Al Gore carved in ice on it is zero. The odds of there being one on Earth is 1:1.

There is a giant leap to certainty by assuming there is some ascribed chance. You ascribe a "fewer than 1%" chance, which you cannot possibly know to be true or not. The chance could be 1:1x10^1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which would make even life on Earth improbable and sheer luck that we made it at all.

I've seen lots of scientists who are certain and say so.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...xist-on-Earth-like-planet-scientists-say.html

Alien life certain to exist on Earth-like planet, scientists say
 
I think it's a virtual certainty that life exists on other planets in the universe. I would even argue that it's a virtual certainty that intelligent life exists elsewhere.
 
tlongII said:
I think it's a virtual certainty that life exists on other planets in the universe. I would even argue that it's a virtual certainty that intelligent life exists elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Heh heh! What we have here is an extreme case of faith! It could be called worship.
 
It's the same kind of faith as the belief that water boils at 212 degrees F.
 
Denny Crane said:
It's the same kind of faith as the belief that water boils at 212 degrees F.
Click to expand...


Hardly! We all have hard evidence of that fact. Zero evidence for life anywhere else. Only faith can support that assertion.
 
There's the same "hard evidence" of life. You don't know that water will boil at 212F the next time you try. It also matters if you try at the top of the mountain or at sea level or with a lid on the pot.

I get why smart people think there is life elsewhere. It's one thing to say, "it sure seems likely," and another to say "it's a certainty" (virtual or not).

One says "what's been observed suggests it to be likely." This may or may not be true, but there is actual evidence. Experience of life here and knowledge about how it works and what the rest of the universe is made of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top