life on other planets
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49984
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 11:23
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: life on other planets
Posted By: Zitro
Subject: life on other planets
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 16:04
|
so, what do u think now that smaller and smaller planets are being discovered?
|
Replies:
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 16:36
In my thinking....
"If....
....there is a Creator, then I don't know. He'd probably want to study or occupy his time with more than us, so why not have other life-filled planets"
....there is no Creator, then hell yes! Countless stars, countless possibilities. We can't be the only ones who've done it."
-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 16:42
|
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.
|
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 17:40
|
In the infinite universe I'm sure we're no special exception to the
rule of space being a vacuum. I'm sure there's something out there,
even if we never meet.
|
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 18:20
|
There probably are, but I doubt we'll ever meet. The nearest galaxy to ours is the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2.5 million light-years away. If we ever developed technology that could bring us near the speed of light... it would still take us 2.5 million years to get there. Unless we develop some teleport technology or wormhole stuff or something... I don't see a point in even thinking there is anything out there.
Edit: I guess there are closer galaxies to us than the Andromeda galaxy; it's just the nearest spiral galaxy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies Even with the closest one which is .02 million light years away... that's still 20,000 light years away... I can't imagine ever reaching that. Unless Star Trek happens.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 18:36
 NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses. |
Ah, that would be me then 
The Drake equation (N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL) is concerned with predicting the number of planets that could support a technological intelligent lifeform whose electromagnetic radiation (tv, radio etc.) we could detect now, so it specifically concerns itself with planets within our galaxy. What it does not predict is the infinitesimally small probability of us ever detected said radiation.
So, since we can never hope to detect the technological intelligent lifeforms in our own galaxy, there is no reason to exclude the other galaxies in the Universes and we can also remove the intelligence, technological and planetary lifetime factors from the equation, therefore the total number of possible planets that possibly could support (or have supported, or will support) life of any kind is, as they say, astronomical.
-------------
What?
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 18:48
Kestrel wrote:
There probably are, but I doubt we'll ever meet. The nearest galaxy to ours is the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2.5 million light-years away. If we ever developed technology that could bring us near the speed of light... it would still take us 2.5 million years to get there. Unless we develop some teleport technology or wormhole stuff or something... I don't see a point in even thinking there is anything out there.
Edit: I guess there are closer galaxies to us than the Andromeda galaxy; it's just the nearest spiral galaxy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies
Even with the closest one which is .02 million light years away... that's still 20,000 light years away... I can't imagine ever reaching that. Unless Star Trek happens. |
Star Trek Voyager was stranded in the Delta quadrant of this galaxy (75,000 light-years away) and it was supposed to take them 75 years to get back (average speed of Warp 6). So 20,000 light-years would be 20 years.
-------------
What?
|
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 19:00
|
Haha, so even in our imaginations we are not capable of such speeds. I've only seen a couple episodes of Star Trek so I had no idea how fast they could go. Do you happen to know Star Wars speeds?
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 19:01
 ... .. no.
-------------
What?
|
Posted By: Kestrel
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 19:47
|
Haha. Well, this http://www.theforce.net/swtc/hyperspace.html#speed - http://www.theforce.net/swtc/hyperspace.html#speed says 120,000c.
|
Posted By: Statutory-Mike
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 20:15
NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses. |
The Drake Equation is pretty interesting, I'm thinking there is but we won't come in contact with them anytime soon.
-------------
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 21:01
Dean wrote:
NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses. |
Ah, that would be me then
The Drake equation (N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL) is concerned with predicting the number of planets that could support a technological intelligent lifeform whose electromagnetic radiation (tv, radio etc.) we could detect now, so it specifically concerns itself with planets within our galaxy. What it does not predict is the infinitesimally small probability of us ever detected said radiation.
So, since we can never hope to detect the technological intelligent lifeforms in our own galaxy, there is no reason to exclude the other galaxies in the Universes and we can also remove the intelligence, technological and planetary lifetime factors from the equation, therefore the total number of possible planets that possibly could support (or have supported, or will support) life of any kind is, as they say, astronomical. |
Ah, I knew you would find your way to this thread. 
Such an interesting topic - led me on about an hour's worth of "wiki-ing" that had me reading about the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of the eye. 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 21:07
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 21:09
Kestrel wrote:
There probably are, but I doubt we'll ever meet. The nearest galaxy to ours is the Andromeda Galaxy which is 2.5 million light-years away. If we ever developed technology that could bring us near the speed of light... it would still take us 2.5 million years to get there. Unless we develop some teleport technology or wormhole stuff or something... I don't see a point in even thinking there is anything out there.
Edit: I guess there are closer galaxies to us than the Andromeda galaxy; it's just the nearest spiral galaxy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_galaxies Even with the closest one which is .02 million light years away... that's still 20,000 light years away... I can't imagine ever reaching that. Unless Star Trek happens. |
Even staying within our own galaxy (which I consider big enough for our current purposes, thank you very much  ), the nearest extrasolar planet is 10.5 light years away. If we were to launch a probe like Voyager 1 to study it (traveling at 17.1 km/s), it would take over 17,000 years to reach the planet - which has been determined to be a Jupiter-sized (mass) planet, so probably no little green men to greet it anyway.
Remember the wise old (and late) Douglas Adams: Space is big.
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 22:33
NaturalScience wrote:
Such an interesting topic - led me on about an hour's worth of "wiki-ing" that had me reading about the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of the eye.
|
It annoys me when that happens... I was doing that earlier.  I kept clicking on the relevant links and never getting back to where I started.
-------------
  
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: July 07 2008 at 22:49
Posted By: Norbert
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 13:45
|
There is a life on Kobaia.
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 17:14
Life, absolutely. Intelligent life, I'm not so sure. Probably not in this time, in this galaxy. Pity...
But then again, many values of parameters in Drake's equation are unknown, so I can at least hope..
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 18:12
|
What is life anyway?
|
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 18:43
|
not in our solar system but it is possible in others.
|
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 18:55
Who knows?
I really don't care whether there is or isn't. We've got our own problems to fix first.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 19:44
NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.
|
But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results? This is not to be dismissed, unless, of course, we are not interested in discussing this matter in a scientific context.
A bit of personal speculation. It seems that there isn't any very good reason to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, or at least I haven't encountered any such arguments. It may well be that we wouldn't recognize such entities, but in that case it would be useless for us to discuss it.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 20:38
WinterLight wrote:
NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses. |
But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results? This is not to be dismissed, unless, of course, we are not interested in discussing this matter in a scientific context. |
Yes and No. The equation is based on having found life on one planet orbiting a nondescript yellow dwarf star on the outer rim of a spiral galaxy, so the only empirical data is scant to say the least. This is why (estimated) results given for the equation vary greatly, indeed many of the parameters are empirically unmeasurable, so are 'calculated guesses' at best - (or pure fantasy, depending upon your point of view).
The use of the equation is not so much in calculating the number of possible planets containing technologically advanced intelligent lifeforms that are capable of being detected by radio waves, but in speculating means of determining each of the individual parameters, (rather than their actual values). For example the more accurately we can measure the 'wobble' of stars, the more accurately we can determine whether planetary bodies are orbiting that star and the more accurately we can speculate a value for fp
WinterLight wrote:
A bit of personal speculation. It seems that there isn't any very good reason to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, or at least I haven't encountered any such arguments. It may well be that we wouldn't recognize such entities, but in that case it would be useless for us to discuss it.
|
From a scientific view, belief does not figure - it is pure speculation based upon sound scientific reasoning - it can never be proven wrong since space is infinite, and it is unlikely that it will ever be proven right because the distances between stars is vast. So by flipping that around, the idea that life does not exist anywhere else in the Universe is equally as unprovable.
Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life.
Recognition of those extraterrestrials is in the main, irrelevant - they can never get here for us to recognise them and we will never be able to visit them, even if we knew where to look.
Useless for us to discuss? Probably , but mind-games like these are something that some humans enjoy just to pass the time - the notion that there could be other lifeforms in the Universe playing the same mind-games doubles the fun. 
-------------
What?
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 20:56
Well according to the headline at the top of this page, "Life on other planets posts on Progressive Rock Music Forum", so evidently it not only exists, but has great taste.
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: July 08 2008 at 21:59
Dean wrote:
WinterLight wrote:
NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.
|
But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results? This is not to be dismissed, unless, of course, we are not interested in discussing this matter in a scientific context.
|
Yes and No. The equation is based on having found life on one planet orbiting a nondescript yellow dwarf star on the outer rim of a spiral galaxy, so the only empirical data is scant to say the least. This is why (estimated) results given for the equation vary greatly, indeed many of the parameters are empirically unmeasurable, so are 'calculated guesses' at best - (or pure fantasy, depending upon your point of view).
The use of the equation is not so much in calculating the number of possible planets containing technologically advanced intelligent lifeforms that are capable of being detected by radio waves, but in speculating means of determining each of the individual parameters, (rather than their actual values). For example the more accurately we can measure the 'wobble' of stars, the more accurately we can determine whether planetary bodies are orbiting that star and the more accurately we can speculate a value for fp
Although I intended my comment in a rhetorical sense, you answered it reasonably well.
WinterLight wrote:
A bit of personal speculation. It seems that there isn't any very good reason to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, or at least I haven't encountered any such arguments. It may well be that we wouldn't recognize such entities, but in that case it would be useless for us to discuss it.
|
From a scientific view, belief does not figure - it is pure speculation based upon sound scientific reasoning - it can never be proven wrong since space is infinite, and it is unlikely that it will ever be proven right because the distances between stars is vast.
If "it can never be proven wrong" then it is not falsifiable, whence it does fall under the purview of science. Of course, this doesn't preclude it existentially. Also the assertion that "space is infinite" remains controversial.
So by flipping that around, the idea that life does not exist anywhere else in the Universe is equally as unprovable.
Theoretically, both claims are provable; however, their verification is practically unattainable.
Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life.
Extremely difficult problem, I think you'll agree.
Recognition of those extraterrestrials is in the main, irrelevant - they can never get here for us to recognise them and we will never be able to visit them, even if we knew where to look.
Useless for us to discuss? Probably , but mind-games like these are something that some humans enjoy just to pass the time - the notion that there could be other lifeforms in the Universe playing the same mind-games doubles the fun. Ha-ha. But I mean "useless" in the literal sense, i.e. we can't draw any substantial conclusions. Of course, it's still interesting to talk about it (hence our present exchange).
|
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:47
the Baldies are living evidence for life on another planer. they are from a planet of which the name is difficult to write in Latin letters; "Wrzrllbrmdf" would come closest, but there are some sounds in our language for which no transcription exists, like smacking of lips and whistles. we don't use vowels. anyway, spoken language is a relic; we communicate via telepathy meanwhile.
in our world we don't have men anymore; we got rid of them centuries ago. kids are being created by merging two egg cells. that way only women can be created (no Y-chromosome).
we have come to earth to prepare our invasion. we will overtake your planet, kill all men and turn all women into baldies too. you may thnk it is foolish of me to tell, but who will believe you when you try to warn the world of our plans?
-------------
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 03:50
BaldJean wrote:
the Baldies are living evidence for life on another planer. they are from a planet of which the name is difficult to write in Latin letters; "Wrzrllbrmdf" would come closest, but there are some sounds in our language for which no transcription exists, like smacking of lips and whistles. we don't use vowels. anyway, spoken language is a relic; we communicate via telepathy meanwhile.
in our world we don't have men anymore; we got rid of them centuries ago. kids are being created by merging two egg cells. that way only women can be created (no Y-chromosome).
we have come to earth to prepare our invasion. we will overtake your planet, kill all men and turn all women into baldies too. you may thnk it is foolish of me to tell, but who will believe you when you try to warn the world of our plans?
|
And in the time honoured way, we will defeat you with these:
http://health.infoniac.com/index.php?page=post_new&id=5"> 
...and these:
-------------
What?
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 04:39
I won't say definitively because it's impossible to know for sure until we find it but I'd put the chances above 99%
Too many planets, plenty of them earthlike, for it not to have happened. Probability says yes. Sentient life is far less likely, of course.
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 05:34
Pnoom! wrote:
I won't say definitively because it's impossible to know for sure until we find it but I'd put the chances above 99%
Too many planets, plenty of them earthlike, for it not to have happened. Probability says yes. Sentient life is far less likely, of course.
|
but we have no idea what this life will be like at all. to quote Bones McCoy: "it's alive, Jim, but not as we know". this means life on another planet may not be based on DNA; there may be a completely different mechanism of procreation and storing of "genetic" (the name is misleading, since genes have a clear definition) information
-------------
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 06:49
BaldJean wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
I won't say definitively because it's impossible to know for sure until we find it but I'd put the chances above 99%
Too many planets, plenty of them earthlike, for it not to have happened. Probability says yes. Sentient life is far less likely, of course.
|
but we have no idea what this life will be like at all. to quote Bones McCoy: "it's alive, Jim, but not as we know". this means life on another planet may not be based on DNA; there may be a completely different mechanism of procreation and storing of "genetic" (the name is misleading, since genes have a clear definition) information
|
I agree.
Vompatti wrote:
What is life anyway?
|
wiki wrote:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis - Homeostasis : Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
- Organization: Being composed of one or more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 - cells , which are the basic units of life.
- Metabolism: Consumption of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy - energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolism - anabolism ) and decomposing organic matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catabolism - catabolism ).
Living things require energy to maintain internal organization
(homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_growth - Growth :
Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing
organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply
accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and
expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
- Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - evolution and is determined by the organism's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity - heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
- Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from
the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex
reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is
often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning
toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells.
Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual
(either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction - asexually , from a single parent organism, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction - sexually ,
from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly
speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process
of growth.
|
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 07:58
|
Most likely I answered
given the number of galaxies and the strars in them, we'll find thousands of planets around those stars, some with the same condotions to our earth, some like Mars or Uranus. Life might not always be present on similar planets as Earth, but there could very well be life on a a planet similar to Uranus or Venus. It could even be mineral life as far as we know it.
But if you think of advanced lifeform such as humankind (able to change planets pretty soon), this reduces the odds quite a bit, almost down to nill. (which is why I don't believe in ET life spacecraft or starships etc...)
I mean, just the odds of finding aplanet like Earth is bad enough, finding life on it (let's say 10% chance) to have it evolved into intelligent beings adapting the conditions to him a,d his needs, instead of adapting to the conditions.... this more than a longshot... it quasi impossible. and even in the event thart this other life would be advanced as we are, would they have found us????
-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: spookytooth
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 10:32
Is there life on other planets? No doubt. Are there advanced civilizations that regularly visit Earth in a circular spacecraft? No. There is life on other planets, but its not life as we think. Most likely, most extraterrestrial life is very primitive and similar to bacteria. Many planets in the known universe can harbor life, and there may be more than we think. Its a stretch, but other planets could possibly support life that's not carbon-based.
I liked what Sean Trane posted earlier. The odds of finding a planet in the universe that can successfully harbor life is low (but most likely primitive forms of life exist on other planets, or at one time they did exist), but think of the odds of finding lifeforms on different planets that have civilization, much less life more advanced than us. The odds are very, very low for this. It would be cool if there were advanced alien civilizations that conquered space travel and observe our planet, but its not true.
-------------
Would you like some Bailey's?
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 11:04
Pnoom! wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
What is life anyway?
|
wiki wrote:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis - Homeostasis : Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
- Organization: Being composed of one or more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 - cells , which are the basic units of life.
- Metabolism: Consumption of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy - energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolism - anabolism ) and decomposing organic matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catabolism - catabolism ).
Living things require energy to maintain internal organization
(homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_growth - Growth :
Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing
organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply
accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and
expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
- Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - evolution and is determined by the organism's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity - heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
- Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from
the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex
reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is
often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning
toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells.
Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual
(either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction - asexually , from a single parent organism, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction - sexually ,
from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly
speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process
of growth.
|
|
the second is not really necessary to define life. it is how life is organized on earth, but on another planet it might be organized differently
-------------
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 13:59
BaldJean wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
What is life anyway?
|
wiki wrote:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis - Homeostasis : Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
- Organization: Being composed of one or more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 - cells , which are the basic units of life.
- Metabolism: Consumption of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy - energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolism - anabolism ) and decomposing organic matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catabolism - catabolism ).
Living things require energy to maintain internal organization
(homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_growth - Growth :
Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing
organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply
accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and
expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
- Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - evolution and is determined by the organism's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity - heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
- Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from
the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex
reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is
often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning
toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells.
Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual
(either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction - asexually , from a single parent organism, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction - sexually ,
from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly
speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process
of growth.
|
|
the second is not really necessary to define life. it is how life is organized on earth, but on another planet it might be organized differently
|
A couple of points.
a) I generally agree with what you're saying but Vompatti wanted to know what exactly life is and that is the standard definition of life
b) remove the second part and it's conceivable you could create a robot that would be "alive"
c) keep in mind that life is very much a "you know it when you see it" thing and that the definition could easily be adapted to fit life on other planets
d) I already feel this list is somewhat flawed because I honestly fail to see why viruses aren't a very primitive life form
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 15:34
WinterLight wrote:
Although I intended my comment in a rhetorical sense, you answered it reasonably well. |
Note to self:  we need a rhetorical emoticon 
WinterLight wrote:
If "it can never be proven wrong" then it is not falsifiable, whence it does fall under the purview of science. Of course, this doesn't preclude it existentially. Also the assertion that "space is infinite" remains controversial.
|
If an idea is not falsifiable it does not follow that it has no place in science. Anyway, "can never be proven wrong" does not necessarily mean "not falsifiable".
If we want to avoid the controversial then we can restrict the Universe to "that which we can observe" rather than The Infinite Beyond. Communication coming from the furthest observable reaches of the Universe emanated when the Universe was very young and unable to support life - we would have to wait another 13 billion years to observe that region of the Universe as it appears today to see whether life exists there now. If we assume that because life took ~4 billion years to evolve on this planet, similar timescales are required on other planets so the minimum observation period must also be of that order. A star born today could conceivably evolve life in the next 4 billion years - as could a star born in 10 billion years time or one created 10 billion years ago - the Infinite of space is in more than one dimension - ergo if we scan the entire Universe today and find no signs of life it does not follow that life cannot/could not exist at some other time and therefore the premise can never be proven because we can never observe all of it.
So while my statement "can never be proven" is not strictly accurate, it is close enough. 
WinterLight wrote:
Theoretically, both claims are provable; however, their verification is practically unattainable.
|
Agreed (see above).
WinterLight wrote:
Dean wrote:
Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life. |
Extremely difficult problem, I think you'll agree.
|
Difficult - yes, Extremely - meh, not convinced... the 'problem' can be reduced to simpler forms than give incremental answers - speculation of possible life-supporting planets are essentially simplified versions of the Earth model with varying parameters. Anyway, if it were easy it wouldn't be a problem 
WinterLight wrote:
Dean wrote:
Useless for us to discuss? Probably , but mind-games like these are something that some humans enjoy just to pass the time - the notion that there could be other lifeforms in the Universe playing the same mind-games doubles the fun. |
Ha-ha. But I mean "useless" in the literal sense, i.e. we can't draw any substantial conclusions. Of course, it's still interesting to talk about it (hence our present exchange).
|
This is a Prog music forum - I doubt we'll ever draw a conclusion, substantial or otherwise on any subject , and I also doubt that cosmologists will be looking here for answers anyway ------------- What?
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 15:46
WinterLight wrote:
NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.
|
But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results?
|
I didn't intend to endorse the formula, but merely wanted to reference it as a guide for those who were interested but unaware, as a sort of launch point to explore the debate.
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 23:43
Pnoom! wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
What is life anyway?
|
wiki wrote:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis - Homeostasis : Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
- Organization: Being composed of one or more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 - cells , which are the basic units of life.
- Metabolism: Consumption of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy - energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolism - anabolism ) and decomposing organic matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catabolism - catabolism ).
Living things require energy to maintain internal organization
(homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_growth - Growth :
Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing
organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply
accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and
expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
- Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - evolution and is determined by the organism's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity - heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
- Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from
the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex
reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is
often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning
toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells.
Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual
(either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction - asexually , from a single parent organism, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction - sexually ,
from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly
speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process
of growth.
|
|
the second is not really necessary to define life. it is how life is organized on earth, but on another planet it might be organized differently
|
A couple of points.
a) I generally agree with what you're saying but Vompatti wanted to know what exactly life is and that is the standard definition of life
b) remove the second part and it's conceivable you could create a robot that would be "alive"
c) keep in mind that life is very much a "you know it when you see it" thing and that the definition could easily be adapted to fit life on other planets
d) I already feel this list is somewhat flawed because I honestly fail to see why viruses aren't a very primitive life form
|
And apparently "alive" =/= "life"
I think something can be alive without being able to reproduce.
-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: July 09 2008 at 23:54
stonebeard wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
What is life anyway?
|
wiki wrote:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis - Homeostasis : Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
- Organization: Being composed of one or more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29 - cells , which are the basic units of life.
- Metabolism: Consumption of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy - energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolism - anabolism ) and decomposing organic matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catabolism - catabolism ).
Living things require energy to maintain internal organization
(homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_growth - Growth :
Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing
organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply
accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and
expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
- Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - evolution and is determined by the organism's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity - heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
- Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from
the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex
reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is
often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning
toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells.
Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual
(either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction - asexually , from a single parent organism, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction - sexually ,
from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly
speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process
of growth.
|
|
the second is not really necessary to define life. it is how life is organized on earth, but on another planet it might be organized differently
|
A couple of points.
a) I generally agree with what you're saying but Vompatti wanted to know what exactly life is and that is the standard definition of life
b) remove the second part and it's conceivable you could create a robot that would be "alive"
c) keep in mind that life is very much a "you know it when you see it" thing and that the definition could easily be adapted to fit life on other planets
d) I already feel this list is somewhat flawed because I honestly fail to see why viruses aren't a very primitive life form
|
And apparently "alive" =/= "life"
I think something can be alive without being able to reproduce.
|
a robot does not have a metabolism. and viruses are generally not seen as life forms by biologists, because they also have no metabolism. anyway, they are definitely not primitive, at least not in the sense that they are some very early kind of proto-life. this can't be because to reproduce viruses need other organisms with a metabolism
-------------
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 00:42
stonebeard wrote:
And apparently "alive" =/= "life"
I think something can be alive without being able to reproduce.
|
If I know what you're trying to say, which I'm not sure I do, you're wrong.
Alive and life apply on different levels... alive to the individual organism, life to the species
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 00:46
Pnoom! wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
And apparently "alive" =/= "life"
I think something can be alive without being able to reproduce.
|
If I know what you're trying to say, which I'm not sure I do, you're wrong.
Alive and life apply on different levels... alive to the individual organism, life to the species
|
By that definition, a sterile person could not be considered alive.
-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 00:46
BaldJean wrote:
a robot does not have a metabolism. and viruses are generally not seen as life forms by biologists, because they also have no metabolism. anyway, they are definitely not primitive, at least not in the sense that they are some very early kind of proto-life. this can't be because to reproduce viruses need other organisms with a metabolism |
re robots... I said conceivably. It seems to me it could be done with further technological advances.
re viruses... primitive was a bad word, simple would be a better one (but still not ideal)
Meh, I'm in over my head here. I'm out.
|
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 01:44
Wuss! True proggers keep trying to keep their head above water until they drown.
Anyways, there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be millions of other planets out there with life as advanced or more advanced (not that that's something possible to quantify anyways).
-------------
 
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 01:50
rileydog22 wrote:
Anyways, there is absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be millions of other planets out there with life as advanced or more advanced (not that that's something possible to quantify anyways).
|
Well there are actually probably very few planets with multicellular (or some "advanced" equivalent) life for every planet with any type of life at all.
|
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 01:55
It's probably a fairly small percentage of the planets that have life at all, but it only took us, what, 2 billion years to develop some decent multicellular stuff out of the first cells? I see no reason why that couldn't happen in a million other planets out there in the millions of galaxies in the universe.
-------------
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 05:17
rileydog22 wrote:
It's probably a fairly small percentage of the planets that have life at all, but it only took us, what, 2 billion years to develop some decent multicellular stuff out of the first cells? I see no reason why that couldn't happen in a million other planets out there in the millions of galaxies in the universe. |
Good call. IMO there is so much life out there the universe is teaming with it. I think 2 billion years in universal terms is pretty small...if you believe in single dimensions
We are in a tiny solar system apprently right out on the fringe and we do not even know where black holes lead to or even if there was life on Mars yet. In 140 years we have gone from sea faring ships to putting some guys on the moon ( not bad going). If we don't destroy the place, in 1000 years we will be sipping chardonnay with some intelligent Ozric's from somewhere up there in orion's belt, oh and swapping timeshare holidays for a long weekend on Neptune. The mind boggles.....
But to think we are the only ones around would be crazy personally speaking.
-------------
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 08:12
Pnoom! wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
a robot does not have a metabolism. and viruses are generally not seen as life forms by biologists, because they also have no metabolism. anyway, they are definitely not primitive, at least not in the sense that they are some very early kind of proto-life. this can't be because to reproduce viruses need other organisms with a metabolism |
re robots... I said conceivably. It seems to me it could be done with further technological advances.
re viruses... primitive was a bad word, simple would be a better one (but still not ideal)
Meh, I'm in over my head here. I'm out.
|
if a robot had a metabolism and was able to reproduce itself we had no choice but to call it alive, in my opinion. it doesn't really matter who made the first of them. it is not necessary for the robot to be sentient
-------------
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 11:06
BaldJean wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
a robot does not have a metabolism. and viruses are generally not seen as life forms by biologists, because they also have no metabolism. anyway, they are definitely not primitive, at least not in the sense that they are some very early kind of proto-life. this can't be because to reproduce viruses need other organisms with a metabolism |
re robots... I said conceivably. It seems to me it could be done with further technological advances.
re viruses... primitive was a bad word, simple would be a better one (but still not ideal)
Meh, I'm in over my head here. I'm out.
|
if a robot had a metabolism and was able to reproduce itself we had no choice but to call it alive, in my opinion. it doesn't really matter who made the first of them. it is not necessary for the robot to be sentient
|
Would you consider it reproduction if a robot (or multiple robots) was capable of doing everything from finding the materials to build a new copy of itself, processing those materials, and building a new copy of itself?
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 11:07
rileydog22 wrote:
It's probably a fairly small percentage of the planets that have life at all, but it only took us, what, 2 billion years to develop some decent multicellular stuff out of the first cells? I see no reason why that couldn't happen in a million other planets out there in the millions of galaxies in the universe.
|
But as I understand it jumping from single cells to multiple cells is a gigantic jump unlikely even given tons of time. I might be wrong, though, as I'm speaking off hazy memories.
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 11:22
Life most likely, sentient life most likely not, Independence Day no.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 15:08
I said definitely, because I find it difficult to believe that Earth is all their is that supports life, especially with how big the Universe is.
As for the inteligent part, you could argue that there's none here, let alone out there.
-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 16:36
Dean wrote:
WinterLight wrote:
If "it can never be proven wrong" then it is not falsifiable, whence it does fall under the purview of science. Of course, this doesn't preclude it existentially. Also the assertion that "space is infinite" remains controversial.
|
If an idea is not falsifiable it does not follow that it has no place in science. No, this is entirely false. Falsifiability is the hallmark of a scientific claim.Anyway, "can never be proven wrong" does not necessarily mean "not falsifiable".
That is precisely what "not falsifiable" means. See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability - Wikipedia entry, for example.
WinterLight wrote:
Dean wrote:
Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life.
|
Extremely difficult problem, I think you'll agree.
|
Difficult - yes, Extremely - meh, not convinced... the 'problem' can be reduced to simpler forms than give incremental answers - speculation of possible life-supporting planets are essentially simplified versions of the Earth model with varying parameters. Anyway, if it were easy it wouldn't be a problem
All of this assumes, of course, that reductionist methods will be fruitful. Although it may be the case, it doesn't appear to induce solvency in biological systems. |
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 18:28
WinterLight wrote:
Dean wrote:
WinterLight wrote:
If "it can never be proven wrong" then it is not falsifiable, whence it does fall under the purview of science. Of course, this doesn't preclude it existentially. Also the assertion that "space is infinite" remains controversial.
|
If an idea is not falsifiable it does not follow that it has no place in science. No, this is entirely false. Falsifiability is the hallmark of a scientific claim. |
|
...not according to the Wiki article you are about to show me - not all scientists support this assertion it appears.
WinterLight wrote:
Dean wrote:
Anyway, "can never be proven wrong" does not necessarily mean "not falsifiable".
That is precisely what "not falsifiable" means. See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability - Wikipedia entry, for example.
|
|
good one. It is what "not falsifiable" means, but not always...
wiki wrote:
Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice |
Which I interpret as "can never be proven wrong"
Dean wrote:
it is pure speculation based upon sound scientific reasoning - it can never be proven wrong since space is infinite, and it is unlikely that it will ever be proven right because the distances between stars is vast. |
i.e. it is falsifiable in theory but not in practice.
WinterLight wrote:
Theoretically, both claims are provable; however, their verification is practically unattainable. |
i.e. it is falsifiable in theory but not in practice.
Anyway, this is turning into a circular argument. I'm out. ------------- What?
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 18:31
Is there life? Probably. Is there intelligent life? No.
-------------
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 18:54
Dim wrote:
Is there life? Probably. Is there intelligent life? No. |
Why so certain?
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 07:48
Pnoom! wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
a robot does not have a metabolism. and viruses are generally not seen as life forms by biologists, because they also have no metabolism. anyway, they are definitely not primitive, at least not in the sense that they are some very early kind of proto-life. this can't be because to reproduce viruses need other organisms with a metabolism |
re robots... I said conceivably. It seems to me it could be done with further technological advances.
re viruses... primitive was a bad word, simple would be a better one (but still not ideal)
Meh, I'm in over my head here. I'm out.
|
if a robot had a metabolism and was able to reproduce itself we had no choice but to call it alive, in my opinion. it doesn't really matter who made the first of them. it is not necessary for the robot to be sentient
|
Would you consider it reproduction if a robot (or multiple robots) was capable of doing everything from finding the materials to build a new copy of itself, processing those materials, and building a new copy of itself?
|
I certainly would; the means by which reproduction takes place are not of importance for the definition. you'd be amazed how many different ways for reproduction there are in life, even if it all boils down to "sperm meets egg" in the end.
the "cell" part of the definition is true for life on earth; it is not necessary for life per se. or would you not call something you find on another planet that fits all requirements except for the cell part "alive"?
-------------
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 12:08
Dean wrote:
Falsifiability is the hallmark of a scientific claim.
...not according to the Wiki article you are about to show me - not all scientists support this assertion it appears.
It is true that not all scientists support the notion of falsifiability, but their numbers are marginal.
Anyway, "can never be proven wrong" does not necessarily mean "not falsifiable".
wiki wrote:
Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice |
Which I interpret as "can never be proven wrong"
Strictly speaking, it should be interpreted as "Some statements that are falsifiable in principle are not falsifiable in practice." From this we can infer that it is beyond practical limits to prove some statements incorrect. But what is considered practical may change with additional information or technology.
Anyway, this is turning into a circular argument. I'm out.
I hate to appear pedantic but this is not a circular argument. A circular argument is one in which the conclusion is assumed as a premise.
|
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 12:10
WinterLight wrote:
I hate to appear pedantic
|
I find that claim highly dubious.
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 17:53
|
Most likely. But I don't believe in UFO sightings and that kind of stuff. Space is big and the chances of them having found us is as slim as we having found them (which we haven't). Also, the whole thing about a possible intelligent life form on another planet being extremely far ahead of us technologically is rather silly to me, for all we know they could be stuck in the stone age still, or at our level.
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 22:12
Philéas wrote:
Most likely. But I don't believe in UFO sightings and that kind of stuff. Space is big and the chances of them having found us is as slim as we having found them (which we haven't). Also, the whole thing about a possible intelligent life form on another planet being extremely far ahead of us technologically is rather silly to me, for all we know they could be stuck in the stone age still, or at our level.
|
well, I do believe in UFO sightings. but I believe they are exactly that - Unidentified Flying Objects
-------------
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 22:13
Pnoom! wrote:
Dim wrote:
Is there life? Probably. Is there intelligent life? No. |
Why so certain?
|
Cause I have trouble believing theres intelligent life here.
-------------
|
Posted By: Fight Club
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 13:17
Definitely. Think about it. When you look up at the night sky you see billions of stars. Go out to Nebraska and you see even more. More than half of those stars half a system of planets of their own. The Wilky Way Galaxy holds roughly 400 billion stars. Now imagine more than half of those with a system of planets. So that's about what? Maybe at least 5 planets each? So there's at least 1 trillion planets in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone. How illogical is it to assume not one out of these trillion planets (of just the Milky Way let me remind you) holds even a bit of life on it? Remember life doesn't have to be weird creatures or humanoids, but can be trees, bacteria, worms, anything. It's just illogical to think only one planet in the entire universe (which we still are unaware of the size) has living organisms on it. Anyone who really believes that needs to pull their head out of his ass and wake up.
-------------
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 15:06
Dim wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
Dim wrote:
Is there life? Probably. Is there intelligent life? No. |
Why so certain?
|
Cause I have trouble believing theres intelligent life here. |
I thought it might be that (it's what my dad says). But, as stupid as people are, they still constitute intelligent life. As do, arguably, dolphins, among other examples.
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 15:08
Pnoom! wrote:
As do, arguably, dolphins, among other examples.
|
Thanks for all the fish.
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 16:12
NaturalScience wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
As do, arguably, dolphins, among other examples.
|
Thanks for all the fish.
|
u mist teh "sew lonk"
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 18:08
Fight Club wrote:
Definitely. Think about it. When you look up at the night sky you see billions of stars. Go out to Nebraska and you see even more. More than half of those stars half a system of planets of their own. The Wilky Way Galaxy holds roughly 400 billion stars. Now imagine more than half of those with a system of planets. So that's about what? Maybe at least 5 planets each? So there's at least 1 trillion planets in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone. How illogical is it to assume not one out of these trillion planets (of just the Milky Way let me remind you) holds even a bit of life on it?
Strictly speaking it is neither illogical or logical to make that assumption; in fact, assumptions are alogical whereas their relation to other assumptions is logical (but even then the situation is not so rigid, as such evaluations are dependent on the interpretative model employed). Now is such an assumption plausible? I suppose it is. Yet I still don't find the total argument convincing.
Remember life doesn't have to be weird creatures or humanoids, but can be trees, bacteria, worms, anything. It's just illogical to think only one planet in the entire universe (which we still are unaware of the size) has living organisms on it.
Again: why is this assertion "illogical"? Does it contradict any known evidence or well-established theory? Not to my knowledge. Incidentally, the "logical" (i.e., rational) position is that of disbelief: believe P when there's evidence for P.
Anyone who really believes that needs to pull their head out of his ass and wake up.
Well, now you've convinced me.
|
|
Posted By: Fight Club
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 22:41
So, were you actually planning on saying something? Or were you just
planning on throwing a bunch of words around to make it sound like you
had a plausible counter argument? Because that's what it sounded like
to me.
-------------
|
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 22:49
dolphins will eventually realize "hey, what if i get out of the water and crawl around?" and the cycle repeats............ cmon! they figured out how to masturbate by jumping out of the water, and as they hit the water coming back down, well, you know the rest. (this is not meant to be offensive, dirty, or anything else. I'm being serious and mature about it. I brought this up to explain my point that dolphins are probably the most intelligent creatures on this planet and they have similar thought processes as us. I'm sorry if i can't actually post this, but if I get in trouble for what i said, that'd be sad.)
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 22:50
|
If behaviour beyond that of most basic life of all animals constitutes intelligent life, then there just maybe something out there that we can be compared to, but space ships flying at the speed of light... not possible.
-------------
|
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 22:59
maybe the creator(s) meant for life on other planets to never meet each other, thus why we're so far away from the nearest star.
this came up in a discussion i had about God or whatever, and how it's possible there's 2, but no more. and how 1 being created the 2. but that could turn this into SERIOUS arguments...
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
|
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: July 14 2008 at 23:22
Fight Club wrote:
So, were you actually planning on saying something? Or were you just
planning on throwing a bunch of words around to make it sound like you
had a plausible counter argument? Because that's what it sounded like
to me.
|
False dichotomy, loaded question, etc.
In any case, I intended not to exhibit a counterargument but rather to bring attention to the flaws in your reasoning.
|
|
