alien life possibility is pathetic

[Christian Klippel]

Joe, we know the composition of other galaxies, other system, other planets, and so far... all seem to be unhabitable

Wrong. What we know is how they were millions and billions of years ago. That does in no way lead to any definite statement about how they are today.

And again, there is no reason to believe that life needs the exact same conditions that existed on earth when it formed.

You are aware that some hypothetical observer in a distant galaxy billions of lightyears away would _now_ see an "unhabitable" planet earth, despite the fact that there is life already? You know what "lightyear" means?

 

[makaya325]

Wrong. What we know is how they were millions and billions of years ago. That does in no way lead to any definite statement about how they are today.

And again, there is no reason to believe that life needs the exact same conditions that existed on earth when it formed.

You are aware that some hypothetical observer in a distant galaxy billions of lightyears away would _now_ see an "unhabitable" planet earth, despite the fact that there is life already? You know what "lightyear" means?

Yes, 186, 282 miles per second, or about 6 trillion miles per year

 

[Lonewulf]

Even then, as far as I know, we haven't discovered many planets outside of this solar system. We've discovered some, and some in the few nearest solar systems, but only if they are of very large size. If we're to see another earth, according to the astrophysicist whose Colloquium I visited, it will have be of very substantial size (A "giant earth"). And even then, we're unlikely to observe it directly at first!

 

[Christian Klippel]

Yes, 186, 282 miles per second, or about 6 trillion miles per year

Good. And when we see a star 100 million lightyears away, what do we really see? The star as it is now, or as it was 100 million years ago?

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes, 186, 282 miles per second, or about 6 trillion miles per year

The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, to earth is over 4 light years away. Did you know that? That's, assuming your math is right (not going to double check as it seems simple enough), over 24 trillion miles away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars#List

There's not much we can see at even this close of a distance.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Even then, as far as I know, we haven't discovered many planets outside of this solar system. We've discovered some, and some in the few nearest solar systems, but only if they are of very large size. If we're to see another earth, according to the astrophysicist whose Colloquium I visited, it will have be of very substantial size (A "giant earth"). And even then, we're unlikely to observe it directly at first!

Hello Lonewulf,

how true. We can only see "shades" of what is out there, so to say. To really know what the situation there is, someone would actually need to get there and look.

For some reason makaya seems to neglect that tiny, little fact. As long as nobody went there and looked, nobody knows what exactly is going on there.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Belz...]

Extremophiles may live in extreme conditions, but what are the chances life could form in such deadly conditions? Life on earth formed in a nice safe deep ocean, which no other planets seem to have. Even a water world would be a problem, since you need land to kick start complex life.

Yes, im aware "look at all those stars", and as you plug in many factors for life, it gets smaller. I argue that some planets may have very simple life, but in no way complex life

If you want to play the absolute certainty card, then sure. We have no clue. But more reasonably, we know of at least one planet where such life has evolved. It's a little unreasonable to think that the numbers aren't in favour of other such planets (or ones completely different)

(Love your sig about bigfoot, by the way)

 

[Belz...]

And finally, I think (at least as the argument has been made on several of these threads) it approaches the "conditions for life" idea backwards. They talk of the rare constellation (so to speak) of conditions that gave rise to life on Earth as an extremely unlikely set of "coincidences". But life evolves to fit conditions, not the other way around.

Hummm... so it's the fine-tuning argument all over again.

 

[JcR]

To assume everything in this Galaxy is the standard for life to be.
Is a bit ignorant of imagination and observation.

 

[makaya325]

Its not like we know nothing about the galaxy. In fact, we know many things, such as the size, the star distance, size, metalicity, planets, etc. Just because our ocean is 100% explored, why do we need to spend millions of dollars to look for "little green men"?

 

[makaya325]

Christian, 100 million years ago

 

[Christian Klippel]

Just because our ocean is 100% explored, why do we need to spend millions of dollars to look for "little green men"?

Dude, that is not even wrong, it is extra wrong.

Ocean life is the most unexplored thing we have here on earth. Let alone deep-ocean stuff.

I have to wonder, are you trying to be utterly wrong by purpose, just to entertain us? Or do you really believe in that garblegook that you spout?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Christian, 100 million years ago

Alright, correct answer.

Now tell us, please, how can you conclude the _current_ situation/environment on or around a star 100 million light years away, from an image or measurements that actually show how it was 100 million years ago? And then, how do you do the same for stars or planets in galaxies billion of lightyears away?

 

[Lonewulf]

Its not like we know nothing about the galaxy. In fact, we know many things, such as the size, the star distance, size, metalicity, planets, etc.

We have a good idea of the general picture, yes. We aren't perfect on details, and there's still that nasty Dark Matter/Dark Energy thing that we have to figure out, but yeah, more or less, we have a decent idea.

Yet there's a lot of things we still don't know yet, especially including the fine details. "Life" would be one of those fine details.

Just because our ocean is 100% explored,

lol wut

You're wrong again. You might want to look into that.

why do we need to spend millions of dollars to look for "little green men"?

Ah yes, "little green men", the thing someone says when they want to mock others, and just look silly their own selves...

Talking about the possibility of life, and the active search for life, are two different issues.

Why do we NEED to spend millions of dollars to look for alien life? We don't, really. We don't NEED to. Nor do we NEED to study fruit flies. We also don't NEED to understand the theory of evolution. Sure, it's useful, and probably good for our long-term survival, but in the sense you're speaking of, we don't NEED to do anything at all.

Personally, though, I'm with Carl Sagan on this issue, and I find his ideas far more compelling than your own.

 

[makaya325]

Lone, all large animals have been found in the ocean

 

[Lonewulf]

Lone, all large animals have been found in the ocean

A tip for any beginners in the art of logic, reading this thread.

When we go from a claim such as this:

Just because our ocean is 100% explored

To this, after the claim is challenged:

Lone, all large animals have been found in the ocean

This is known as "changing the goalposts", and is generally the work of someone that is being disingenuous.

I highly recommend for any beginners in philosophy, logic, or anything similar to take note of this, and to note that you should stay away from such tactics.

Class dismissed!

 

[makaya325]

No lone, i just wanted to get that off my chest. Back to the topic... Any reasonable reason to dismiss the rare earth theory? Im talking about complex life

 

[Christian Klippel]

I highly recommend for any beginners in philosophy, logic, or anything similar to take note of this, and to note that you should stay away from such tactics.

Class dismissed!

Hi Lonewulf,

agreed. I call that the "look, there is Elvis!" strategy. It's sole purpose is, of course, to distract from the real issue at hand.

I'm starting to wonder if makaya is some kind of ID'er in disguise? Slowly trying to get people to admit that there is no life elsewhere, and then suddenly jump to the conclusion "see, there must be a god who created all this!".

Oh well....

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Lonewulf]

Yes. It relies on far too many assumptions, that have not been adequately supported.

 

[Lonewulf]

Hi Lonewulf,

agreed. I call that the "look, there is Elvis!" strategy. It's sole purpose is, of course, to distract from the real issue at hand.

I'm starting to wonder if makaya is some kind of ID'er in disguise? Slowly trying to get people to admit that there is no life elsewhere, and then suddenly jump to the conclusion "see, there must be a god who created all this!".

Oh well....

Greetings,

Chris

Reminds me of a creationist's Youtube log I saw. "Do I believe in alien life? Well, I have a hard time thinking that there's life on THIS planet! (hur hur hur...)"

Makaya certainly debates with the passion and general ignorance of the average ID'er, but to be fair, that might be less indicative of being an IDer, and more indicative of being young and unable to admit he might be wrong about something.