Religion: Why do you care?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Does your point about no one refuting any theories on abiogenesis really refute any of those post?

That is not what I fucking said and you fucking well know it.

I fucking said that no one refuses to admit that current theories may be wrong. The word 'refute' has not been fucking mentioned by either of us. Are you honestly just congenitally unable to follow the fucking thread of a fucking conversation?

Fuck.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Does your point about no one refuting any theories on abiogenesis really refute any of those post?

That is not what I fucking said and you fucking well know it.

If you say so.

Quote

I fucking said that no one refuses to admit that current theories may be wrong. The word 'refute' has not been fucking mentioned by either of us.

And how does that make my accusation (take your pick) meaningless?

Quote

Are you honestly just congenitally unable to follow the fucking thread of a fucking conversation?

Temper, temper.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Do you? Oh, it's possible that other planets have these same elements,

Last time I checked all of the universe was composed of the same elements.

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

And how does that make my accusation (take your pickWink) meaningless?

Oh just read the fucking thread.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DSE 5]

Quote

Thanks Kallend. I've read that before.

I wonder how the author came up with:

- ne the number of planets with environments favorable to life (roughly 10 percent),
- fl the fraction of planets with life (guesswork but perhaps with a probability of 0.1 or 0.2),
- fi the proportion of those planets on which intelligent life has evolved (again guesswork, with probabilities ranging from 0.1 to 0.5),
- fc the fraction of planets able to communicate with other civilizations by radio or some other means (inestimable until Earth receives such a communication), and
- L for the longevity of the civilization.

The conclusion of "Drake believes that N may be as high as 10,332" seems to be built on some very subjective numbers... particularly for NE and FL.

No matter how he concluded these values, I'm sure that religion provides a better answer based on faith.

I saw pictures of the new museum in Kentucky; I now understand the stupidity that drives some people. They're easily distracted by shiny things and dinosaurs that electronically roar, and they'll believe anything thrust upon them.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

The conclusion of "Drake believes that N may be as high as 10,332" seems to be built on some very subjective numbers... particularly for NE and FL.

No matter how he concluded these values, I'm sure that religion provides a better answer based on faith.

As long as you're sure.

Quote

I saw pictures of the new museum in Kentucky; I now understand the stupidity that drives some people. They're easily distracted by shiny things and dinosaurs that electronically roar, and they'll believe anything thrust upon them.

Bringing it back to creationism?

Seems like a transparent ploy, don't you think?

[Royd 0]

Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Basically, said planet must be another earth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Ok, taking that as true (discounting other possible forms of life), why do you think it so unlikely that another earth isn't out there?

It's an odds thing.Considering that we seem to be in a perfect orbit around a small star, a perfect combination of elements, atmosphere and even the tipping on its axis to properly refrigerate each hemisphere in turn, not to mention the symbiosis[see, I know some big words, too]of plants and animals that could not continue to exist without each other, what would be the chance of all of the pieces of the puzzle falling together in any given solar system with a star ten times the size of the Sun?

Quote

Hell, we have two planets right here in our own solar system that only just barely missed out on having our conditions - and there are uncountable trillions of other solar systems out there.

But, they did miss the boat.

I just saw an article where some scientist believes that there were huge oceans on Mars at one time. They just disappeared. I'll call BS on that one. How about you?

BTW,Your point of view sounds more like faith to me, with every post.

[billvon 3,009]

>t's an odds thing.Considering that we seem to be in a perfect orbit around
> a small star . . .

We're not. It's elliptical, it's tilted and it wobbles. This causes nasty things like ice ages and mass extinctions.

>a perfect combination of elements . . .

How is it perfect? It's mostly iron, and the composition of the interior results in a lot of earthquakes, volcanoes and moving about of continents. Heck, there's so much water that we have to live on 30% of the area of the planet! If we had evolved as whales it would be a lot more perfect for us.

>atmosphere . . .

Less nitrogen would result in us not having problem with decompression sickness when diving and flying. More ozone would prevent a lot of skin cancer.

All of the above are examples of why "earth works well enough for us." They are certainly not "earth is perfect."

>what would be the chance of all of the pieces of the puzzle falling
>together in any given solar system with a star ten times the size of the
>Sun?

?? What does that have to do with it? If the sun had ten times the output, locating the earth farther away would work to keep insolation the same.

>Hell, we have two planets right here in our own solar system that only
>just barely missed out on having our conditions . . .

Good point. That tells me that it is likely that there are others like that.

>and there are uncountable trillions of other solar systems out there.
>But, they did miss the boat.

Nope, that's an unwarranted assumption that you make. It's like discovering a cool red rock in your back yard and assuming it is the only one like it that has ever existed because you have never seen another like it.

>I just saw an article where some scientist believes that there were huge
>oceans on Mars at one time. They just disappeared. I'll call BS on that
>one. How about you?

?? There are shorelines, floodplains and deposits of sediment on Mars. There were once bodies of water there.

[Royd 0]

Quote

We're not. It's elliptical, it's tilted and it wobbles. This causes nasty things like ice ages and mass extinctions.

The ellipse is perfect in order to achieve its intended goal, ice ages, global warming, another ice age, no dinosaurs stomping through my backyard. It all comes together in one, nice flow.

Quote

what would be the chance of all of the pieces of the puzzle falling
>together in any given solar system with a star ten times the size of the
>Sun?

?? What does that have to do with it? If the sun had ten times the output, locating the earth farther away would work to keep insolation the same.

We are working on the assumption that everything has to be a duplicate earth in order for life to sustain itself. It really doesn't matter the size of the star, the orbit would have to be the perfect distance depending on the solar output.

>Hell, we have two planets right here in our own solar system that only
>just barely missed out on having our conditions . . .

Good point. That tells me that it is likely that there are others like that.

>and there are uncountable trillions of other solar systems out there.
>But, they did miss the boat.

Quote

Nope, that's an unwarranted assumption that you make. It's like discovering a cool red rock in your back yard and assuming it is the only one like it that has ever existed because you have never seen another like it.

Based on the evidence around me, I'm going with, there is not, nor has there ever been life on another planet in our solar system.

>I just saw an article where some scientist believes that there were huge
>oceans on Mars at one time. They just disappeared. I'll call BS on that
>one. How about you?

Quote

?? There are shorelines, floodplains and deposits of sediment on Mars. There were once bodies of water there.

I love it. How long has this article been out? You buy it without a head scratch.

I thought water was a constant, regardless of its form. How can it just disappear? Oh, I know. The magic man in the sky!

[billvon 3,009]

>The ellipse is perfect in order to achieve its intended goal, ice ages,
>global warming, another ice age, no dinosaurs stomping through my
>backyard. It all comes together in one, nice flow.

Everything that happened in the past - from ice ages, to parasites, skin cancer, leprosy, meteor strikes, wars, and 9/11 - got us where we are today. Would you therefore claim that 9/11 is part of God'd perfect progression? If you got skin cancer, would you not wish to tamper with God's "flow" - or would you go to a doctor and try to rid yourself of it? If you got lice, would you keep them as part of the world's perfect order?

Our orbit is the result of the laws of physics we've known about for centuries. If parts of our orbit did not match the laws of physics, you might have an argument for divine tampering. That is not the case.

> It really doesn't matter the size of the star, the orbit would have to be the
>perfect distance depending on the solar output.

Like I said, our orbit is imperfect; we do OK. Other planets have equally imperfect orbits. In addition, we are slowly getting closer to the sun, and are slowing our rotational speed. Other planets will go through the same region we are in now, just as we will leave the region we are in now.

>Based on the evidence around me, I'm going with, there is not, nor has
>there ever been life on another planet in our solar system.

Just as that man will decide, based on the evidence in his back yard, that there are no red rocks outside his back yard. He is, of course, wrong, because he has purposely narrowed his view.

>I love it. How long has this article been out? You buy it without a head scratch.

I'm not talking about an article. The evidence first became persuasive around 2000 and has been getting stronger and stronger ever since.

> I thought water was a constant, regardless of its form. How can it just disappear?

Ever seen a dry lake bed? How about a polar ice cap? Where are the lakes in Antarctica? And those lying scientists claim there's water down there . . .

[Royd 0]

Quote

Everything that happened in the past - from ice ages, to parasites, skin cancer, leprosy, meteor strikes, wars, and 9/11 - got us where we are today. Would you therefore claim that 9/11 is part of God'd perfect progression? If you got skin cancer, would you not wish to tamper with God's "flow" - or would you go to a doctor and try to rid yourself of it? If you got lice, would you keep them as part of the world's perfect order?

Regardless of what happens to me personally and how I deal with it, the final result will be the same.

Quote

Like I said, our orbit is imperfect; we do OK. Other planets have equally imperfect orbits. In addition, we are slowly getting closer to the sun, and are slowing our rotational speed. Other planets will go through the same region we are in now, just as we will leave the region we are in now.

I would say that each orbit around the sun is pretty much a carbon copy of the year before. It's not a free hand etch a scketch.

So is the earth or the sun or physics in general, responsible for global warming?

> I thought water was a constant, regardless of its form. How can it just disappear?

Quote

Ever seen a dry lake bed? How about a polar ice cap? Where are the lakes in Antarctica? And those lying scientists claim there's water down there . . .

As much water as the mock ups showed on Mars, if it had evaporated there would be large quantities of clouds. There aren't. Water can't simply disappear. It takes another form. I did pay attention in the 4th grade.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Thanks Kallend. I've read that before.

I wonder how the author came up with:

- ne the number of planets with environments favorable to life (roughly 10 percent),
- fl the fraction of planets with life (guesswork but perhaps with a probability of 0.1 or 0.2),
- fi the proportion of those planets on which intelligent life has evolved (again guesswork, with probabilities ranging from 0.1 to 0.5),
- fc the fraction of planets able to communicate with other civilizations by radio or some other means (inestimable until Earth receives such a communication), and
- L for the longevity of the civilization.

The conclusion of "Drake believes that N may be as high as 10,332" seems to be built on some very subjective numbers... particularly for NE and FL.

Hawking comes up with similar numbers. Maybe you're a better cosmologist than Drake, Sagan and Hawking.

[NCclimber 0]

There's the formula for the Rare Earth hypothesis.

[billvon 3,009]

>Regardless of what happens to me personally and how I deal with it, the
>final result will be the same.

Ah. So there's no point in doing anything, really.

Fortunately most people do not believe that.

>So is the earth or the sun or physics in general, responsible for global
>warming?

Thermodynamics, to be specific.

>As much water as the mock ups showed on Mars, if it had evaporated
>there would be large quantities of clouds.

Uh, no. The atmosphere is not thick enough to allow clouds to form. Water vapor hangs out in the atmosphere until it is broken up (via UV radiation) into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen escapes into space, and the oxygen combines with iron bearing compounds in the crust of the planet. Which, by the way, is why it's red.

> There aren't. Water can't simply disappear. It takes another form. I did
>pay attention in the 4th grade.

But apparently not in sixth grade chemistry, when they told you that water is hydrogen and oxygen, and can be split if enough energy is applied.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Uh, no. The atmosphere is not thick enough to allow clouds to form. Water vapor hangs out in the atmosphere until it is broken up (via UV radiation) into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen escapes into space, and the oxygen combines with iron bearing compounds in the crust of the planet. Which, by the way, is why it's red.

So, when it's all said and done, Mars really doesn't have the ability to start or sustain life? What were the other two planets?

[billvon 3,009]

>So, when it's all said and done, Mars really doesn't have the ability
>to start or sustain life?

The MOON has sustained human life; I'm sure Mars could as well. Life could have indeed started there, since it was once warmer and wetter. We don't know yet if it has; all we have so far are pictures and a few chemical analyses. We've never (for example) looked at subterranean water reservoirs to see if there are bacteria in them.

We have found a few meteorites from Mars that _might_ have signs of fossilized bacteria in them. Until we get there and look for ourselves, though. we won't know.

>What were the other two planets?

?? What other two planets?

[Royd 0]

>What were the other two planets?

Quote

?? What other two planets?

Jakee post #248 said there were two planets in our solar system besides Earth that come close to being able to sustain life. Maybe I should ask him.

As for the moon sustaining life, I can jump out of an airplane, and land safely on my feet.

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

There's the formula for the Rare Earth hypothesis.

What do Lanthanides have to do with it?

Or were you thinking of "Hey Freak Brother"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

My problem with the Drake equation is (in reference to the variable names above) with "fi" and "L". I've talked about it a bit before in other threads, but I'll try not to just repeat myself.

"Simple" life, it would seem, has a much broader range of environments it is capable of existing in. I think in the process of evolving into anything we'd consider intelligent, life would have to battle with the dynamic nature of the planet / solar system / galaxy. I think this battle would significantly limit "fi", and later on "L" as well if the life got smart, but not smart enough to stay ahead of its changing environment. Are humans going to suffer such a fate? *shrugs* Maybe, although we've already launched probes that have left the solar system, so even if we go no further before something crushes life on this planet back to square one, you could argue we've made our mark.

Given the sample time/space cross-section of the universe you'd have to examine before the probability of finding intelligent life came up out of the noise, and the cross-section we're restricted to even having access to observe during what may be a relatively short "L" for humans, I don't think the probability of us finding anyone to "talk to" is all that high. I think the probability that we eventually discover modest forms of life, or remains of modest forms of life is much higher, and I dare say even worth spending some money on. (whoops, that's my bias showing...)

One thing I noticed a lot of in this and other threads is a misunderstanding when someone makes statements of probability, and a confusion about how that might relate to faith. An example was given about driving a car, so I'll use that.

If I say, "given what I know, I estimate that my car will get me to work safely with a probability of 0.997" and then get in my car and start driving, that is by no means a profession of faith. Likewise, if I say, "given what I know, I estimate that my car will get me to work safely with a probability of 0.003" and then get in my car and start driving, that is not a profession of faith either. The latter case could be called stupid, but it's not a profession of faith.

Faith isn't about rounding probabilities up or down to justify a decision you made, and it's certainly not synonymous with such an act.

[philh 0]

"So I can take a gallon of sterile water, put it into a sealed container inside of a vacumn and life is eventually going to spring forth? Life must exist for life to continue. After that, all conditions that this life form needs to exist must remain constant or it will not thrive. What's that survival rule about air,water, food? "

Now you are changing the subject from, is there life on other planets?to what models explain abio genesis? These are seperate issues.
But since you bring it up, Rresearchers are currently exploring a aumber of theories on abio genesis, which include the iron-sulfur world, rna world etc you can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Eigen.27s_hypothesis


Although there is currently no consesus none of the scenarios being explored involve your ridiculous straw man scenario. No one is suggesting that life just suddenly formed in the silly children story like way you might read in the bible. Instead gradual changes moved matter from inorganic to organic. One example of this can be read here:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020330/fob1.asp

This research shows that amino acids and other organic molecules can form on icy asteroids in space.
In another experiment scientists fired amino acids in a gas gun simulating asteroid impacts on Earth, what happened to theese amino acids? They fromed more complex molecules called peptides, the building blocks of proteins.
You can read more about it here:
www.llnl.gov/str/September02/pdfs/09_02.1.pdf


if you had a serious critique of some of the models being explored you could perhaps publish them in a proper sceintific journal. But even if you are correct in your criiticisms that would only show that our current models are wrong, and thats a big if. It wouldt shine any light on what really happened and your straw man criticism would still remain as ridiculous as it was to begin with.

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Jakee post #248 said there were two planets in our solar system besides Earth that come close to being able to sustain life. Maybe I should ask him.

And Mars is one of them, Venus is the other. Now in the interests of accuracy I will point out that I actually said they came close to having our conditions, and that is true. Obviously no-one is going to say that Venus as it is right now could come close to sustaining our kind of life, but if it was a little bit further out and if its atmosphere was a little different...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

It's an odds thing.Considering that we seem to be in a perfect orbit around a small star, a perfect combination of elements, atmosphere and even the tipping on its axis to properly refrigerate each hemisphere in turn, not to mention the symbiosis of plants and animals that could not continue to exist without each other,

You're not thinking from the right perspective here. You're looking at what we have now and thinking "Wow, what are the chances that all this life just appeared here like this?" That is wrong.

Life will only form on planets that have the right ocnditions. This is obvious. Any form of intelligent life will look at its own world and think "Hey, isn't it lucky that we were put here on this perfect world with all its (insert compounds here) to sustain us!" It's Douglas Adams' puddle comment again.

And as for the symbiotic that all plants and animals have with each other, well, that is simply what we expect from evolution. If any animal mutates in such a way that it can't co-exist with the rest of life on the planet then it just dies. The only organisms that survive and replicate are those that are able to take advantage of their surroundings.



Now I'm going to try and look at the question from your point of view. When God created the earth and the universe, the unfathomably, unimaginably huge universe, why wouldn't he have put other life in it? Here, take a look at NASA's absolutely stunning Hubble Ultra Deep Field image. There are 10,000 galaxies contained in that image, an image that looks at the same amount of sky as a medium sized crater on the moon.

Was all that created just for us? Why? When God created the universe did he look ahead and think to himself "Y'know, they won't be able to appreciate this yet but when they get clever enough to design space based telescopes I'll give them something really pretty to look at!"

Why do you think God made us the only ones in such an enormous universe?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Quote

Why do you think God made us the only ones in such an enormous universe?

Perhaps she wanted plenty of places to escape from God-bothering humans.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[Royd 0]

Quote

Obviously no-one is going to say that Venus as it is right now could come close to sustaining our kind of life, but if it was a little bit further out and if its atmosphere was a little different... [/reply First, thanks to everyone for the thoughtful, underogatory posts. I appreciate it.

Wouldn't it be a boring world though, if we all just nodded our heads and said,"Yes, that's the way it is."?

Now, back to Venus, you have confirmed my statement that all conditions must be perfect for life.

If Venus contained the exact same makeup as Earth sans life, but remained in its same orbit its still too hot.

If we put it into the proper orbit, but the surface conditions are not favorable, it's still useless.

I just believe that the odds are fantastically huge.

If I were to take a ton of marbles, mark two of them, put them into a cannon, require that these two marbles land a prescribed distance from each other, then shoot them into the air, what would the chances be of actually succeeding at the task?

• Quote

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

There's the formula for the Rare Earth hypothesis.

What do Lanthanides have to do with it?

I don't know. Did I bring them into the discussion?

And I'm not talking about those white guys, who signed under the Motown label back in the 60s, either.