alien life possibility is pathetic

[makaya325]

No, it's not.

Are you by any chance a Creationist?

Are you kidding? I think they are delusional people who need to be put away.

I look up to Hard atheists like dawkins, dennett, and sagan

 

[Lonewulf]

You look up to Sagan?

Didn't you call Carl Sagan a "woo"? You claimed that "people like Drake" are "woos", and Carl Sagan used the Drake Equation in Cosmos. He always posited the possibility of alien life, and went into great length on it in Cosmos.

Furthermore, I think he would debate with you on identifying him as a hard atheist. From what I've read, he self-identified himself as an agnostic/soft atheist. Or perhaps he just gave agnosticism/soft atheism very positive light in Contact without sharing the beliefs of the main character.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lone, the universe doesnt care if people say life has to exist elsewhere.

No one's saying it "has to". We're saying that there's definitely the possibility, perhaps even probability, that it does.

I might have been a little heated when starting the topic.

That's understandable. However, you should definitely question your own presumptions, and stop repeating something as true until you can demonstrate how it is true. So far you've been using many different fallacies, but have provided no real information -- just personal incredulity.

The truth is: I do think that microbes are likely to exist, however, the transition from microbes to complex life is incredible to consider

Argument from Incredulity, again.

Microbes evolved on Earth -- and as you aren't an ID proponent or creationist, you must surely agree.

Evolution is a pretty natural process when it comes to life.

When given a long enough spread of time, evolution is inevitable, as long as the microbes pass information down from generation to generation. Even if, say, 80% of total life in the universe would end up being microbes, algae (and equivalents) and the like, that's still a big ol' 20% or whatever to consider.

And either way, the truth is, no matter what way you put it, you don't know anything about life. You can posit the best guess, given what we've seen on life on Earth, but even that's varied. There's as many species of life as there are grains of sand in the Sahara, and there's still things we don't know.

You say that the idea of silicon-based life is laughable to you. To be honest, I don't care if you find the concept laughable. All you say is that carbon is more common, and then carry that to mean "ergo, all life must be carbon-based". This is ridiculous. And silicon is only one example.

You talk about the dangerous conditions in a galaxy. Yes, several solar systems are subject to rather catastrophic changes. But yet, matter can be rather resistant... and like I said, there are several areas that are relatively free of changes. Even the Earth was struck by a Mars-sized object (according to the latest theory on the matter), which made the earth and the moon. By your own logic, the Earth should not have been capable of producing life!

Until you can learn the basic fallacies you make throughout this thread, you will not learn. If this subject winds you up so much you are incapable of making them, then I recommend you take a break from this thread, and spend time furthering your learning. I'd also recommend you viewing different viewpoints, than those that happen to supposedly mesh with your own... and read deeper into what those that supposedly agree with you actually have to say...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you kidding? I think they are delusional people who need to be put away.

I look up to Hard atheists like dawkins, dennett, and sagan

Good. Then why do you find it difficult to imagine life evolving beyond microbes?

 

[JcR]

You look up to Sagan?
Furthermore, I think he would debate with you on identifying him as a hard atheist. From what I've read, he self-identified himself as an agnostic/soft atheist. Or perhaps he just gave agnosticism/soft atheism very positive light in Contact without sharing the beliefs of the main character.

I agree...I think Carl Sagan resisted the atheist label.
If I recall right, Albert Einstein also resisted being put in this camp.
So it might be just ignorance to label them as one.

 

[Lonewulf]

I agree...I think Carl Sagan resisted the atheist label.
If I recall right, Albert Einstein also resisted being put in this camp.
So it might be just ignorance to label them as one.

Yeap. But it's a lot of ignorance, considering Carl Sagan's stances on a lot of issues, including his entirely positive mindset towards the idea of alien life... and not only that, but how alien life might not only discover us, but what they may very well think of our fragile existence on the planet Earth (consider, for instance, that he was thinking during the Cold War... which, according to the Cuban Missile Crisis, had quite the chance to get quite hot).

 

[Bibbly]

Facets or Possibilities

I am fully aware of everyone on the forum believing ufo's are simply man made and made up

Unidentified Flying Objects may be man made, but are incredibly far from being simple. Life \ Drag + Rotation took a long time to work out.

I'm talking about E.T. life. Isn't it . . . ignorant . . . to suggest that we aren't the only life in the universe?

No it's not ignorant. It's plausible. We are alive. So thus it's not entirely impossible is it?

Come on, does anyone see the incredibly complex events on earth that made it even POSSIBLE for the simplest of life to form?

But in a way, doesn't the complete implausibility of it all stand as a correlating factor to how incredibly unlikely our individual existences are? All the factors that tied into our parents getting together on that night, having sex for that long, maybe even what they had for breakfast the week or even days before that formed the proteins that would become one of your sperms chromosomal links... it's epic.

How can anyone believe it is even possible for 100's of unique events to happen just right on other planets. You need the right sun, the right planet size, the right galaxy, the right moon, etc and the list goes on and on from there.

The number would be incomprehensibly larger than one hundred that's for certain. But as for the galaxy... planet size... that's all way out where we have never been.

Let's face it... the plausibility of there being life on the planets nearest us is dim, yes. But in consideration to the vastness of the universe and the intense chemical reactions happening out there in space- it's not impossible. It's not impossible because we are alive on this planet, while also the human race as we know it has never been on another planet to fully explore the facets or possibilities of life.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Edit: And i have to agree with the others here about you moving the goalposts. Your OP referring to the possibility of any life, and your later posts "only" about the possibility of complex life pretty well shows that you run out of arguments pretty quickly.

Well, now, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. A lot of folks on this forum would love to see people with mistaken ideas change their minds, but as soon as they start to, they are accused of moving the goalposts. Did you really expect him to go from "no life anywhere" directly to "intelligence everywhere" without passing through a few points in between?

From what I've seen, I have a small degree of hope for him.

Unique ? Explain. It's not as if we know of a lot of other solar systems, so I'm curious as to how you reached that conclusion.

Easy. It's unique because it has life. And it has life because it's unique. QED.

1st off, life is very very PRECIOUS. It has to have very specific conditions for it to even exist for a certain amount of time. What are the chances a planet doesnt get affected by a supernova, gamma ray, asteroid, solar flare etc at all for 5 billion straight years? Incredibly small, if not non-existent.

The probability that this can happen is 100%.

He apparently doesn't read comic books, either.

What about naturally-occuring, non-planetary life? Think the Brood got their living SpaceWhale ships from Earth?

What about non-mineral-based life? Floating amoeboids that feed on hydrogen gas? What about forms of bacteria that need a cool, bloated red supergiant like Betelgeuse to survive? I mean, did you never, ever, ever watch Star Trek?

Heck - there's even a possibility - however faint, however fantastic - that there might exist 'living' planets or nebulae or stars, even. We have only the faintest ideas of what life is, how to define it, how to categorize it. And it's all based on our own carbon-based, earth-bound, limited biases of what we can observe.

Yes, our chances of finding any extra-terrestrial life forms may be near-zero. Yet if we stop looking, our chances are a lot worse.

I think I recall reading a book that featured an alien intelligence that lived in the core of the sun. The aliens were astounded to discover that not only were we alive, but also intelligent. After all, how could any form of life survive in the cold reaches of space, away from the soothing heat of the nuclear furnace? It may have been a Larry Niven book, but I'm not sure.

No, because he is a moron. It does help explain some the posts I've read here though. Moron teachers often produce moron students.

Now, now, while moron teachers do often produce moron students, that does not mean that makaya's teacher was a moron. Having been a teacher, (and as any parent will know), I know that all too often you can say one thing and the student will swear up and down that you said another.

Makaya says his teacher said "it was silly for people to even CONSIDER advanced life possible." Given Makaya's history of not properly citing references, I can easily imagine a perfectly responsible teacher saying "it is silly for people to even CONSIDER the detection of advanced life possible" and have makaya interpret it as he did.

What are the chances that the blocks will form a large tower without any dangers, like solar flares, asteroids, gamma rays, black holes, etc? So every time the microbial life trys to build its tower, a gamma ray would represent knocking down the tower, and then life has to begin again or die out

There is no need for imagination. Regarding other non-carbon based life, its not plausible. Carbon is way more widespread than silicon, and silicon couldnt allow for simple life to evolve.

I was going to respond to the first of these two posts by saying you suffer from a lack of imagination. I was horrified to learn from the next one that you think science doesn't require imagination.

Imagiantion brought us mechanized travel, fax machines, vaccinations, space telescopes, tornado warning systems, DNA research, nuclear power, and so on and so on and so on. To think that imagination is unnecessary to properly pursue science is just...well, it's just staggering. Heck, when I taught, I told my students the most important thing they could do was wonder. Wonder why, wonder how, wonder what if. It's the first, and most important, step to discovery.

So, since you don't seem to have one, I'll apply my imagination to the problem instead.

You mention obstacles such as solar flares, asteroids, gamma rays, and black holes. I could envision a race built around the properties of a solar kite, that uses the flares to flit about the solar system as their primary mode of transportation.

Asteroids? Even easier. I believe that even here on earth there are forms of life that break down minerals into fuel. Asteroids are great sources of minerals. And when you deplete one, the gravity well is too small to keep you from floating off to find another.

Gamma rays. Well, gamma rays are just a form of radiation. They happen to be harmful to us, but that's because we evolved in an environment that happened to shield against them. A planet without such a shield may evolve life that uses those gamma rays in a way akin to photosynthesis.

And finally black holes. I immediately thought of sea creatures. I can't name the exact one, but I remember reading about a sea creature that positions itself in a current, facing upstream, and just sits there with its mouth open, catching all the bugs or plankton or whatnot that happen to float in. Well, a black hole pulls in a tremendous amount of matter and energy. An interstellar creature that feeds on either would find a practically infinite food source in proximity to a black hole.


See? Imagination. Try it sometime, it's fun.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Hello NobbyNobbs,

Well, now, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. A lot of folks on this forum would love to see people with mistaken ideas change their minds, but as soon as they start to, they are accused of moving the goalposts. Did you really expect him to go from "no life anywhere" directly to "intelligence everywhere" without passing through a few points in between?

fair enough. Might be that i'm a bit thin-skinned currently, because of some other thread where someone tries to become the master of ignorance.

From what I've seen, I have a small degree of hope for him.

Hehe, keep in mind: The hope dies last.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[JcR]

Yeap. But it's a lot of ignorance, considering Carl Sagan's stances on a lot of issues, including his entirely positive mindset towards the idea of alien life... and not only that, but how alien life might not only discover us, but what they may very well think of our fragile existence on the planet Earth (consider, for instance, that he was thinking during the Cold War... which, according to the Cuban Missile Crisis, had quite the chance to get quite hot).

A little Tired but...
I admired his passion and vivid imagination. If only the resources and great minds of that time
were more channeled towards ending famine or Disease.
Though advances still did come about, even with the intentions of war between us.
The vastness of space and time may be a hindrance for communication between
us and a possible extraterrestrial life, present somewhere in our Universe.
If? By some chance this "other life" advanced and developed with a compatible technology to our own.
And do they even possess a desire to seek out extraterrestrial life as much as some of us do?
Another Unknown.
These signals might fall on deaf ears or be a victim of time and space.
Maybe Time and space is what keeps us from hearing right now?
Maybe an "extraterrestrial life" has developed technologies far beyond any thing
we could Imagine, and have been able to create a "fast express" for communication across
the great vastness of the Universe as we know it to be.
We may not be able to receive these calls, or tune into the proper channel.
Could be we and all extraterrestrials are waiting for "snail pace signals" that may never fall on listening ears.
I can imagine taking a picture and not being able to see it immediately after it's development.
Instead I have to wait 250 years to witness it.
Though alien life may or may not have evolved to anything even remotely
compatible with us, or just evolved at the "wrong time" and "wrong place" so to speak.
I still believe it is worth the "shot" to listen and wait.
It might give us unexpected results.

 

[godless dave]

Since we have scanned the whole sky and came up empty,...

Uh, yeah. Not really.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, now, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. A lot of folks on this forum would love to see people with mistaken ideas change their minds, but as soon as they start to, they are accused of moving the goalposts. Did you really expect him to go from "no life anywhere" directly to "intelligence everywhere" without passing through a few points in between?

I said it before; he's see-sawing, from his old claim, to a new claim, back to his old claim, if you look at his posts. I don't see improvement, I see tactics.

Not only that, but he's not willing to go back and admit he's wrong when he's demonstrated to be wrong. Maybe it's just a whole bunch of pride, but it's rather frustrating.

 

[calebprime]

... I can only hope that when you are tagged and released, you never manage to be put in charge of anything more advanced than a McDonalds Fry Machine.

...

I can only hope this is all a "Colbert" act, and we are all a victim of Poe's Law. Otherwise... my first paragraph stands.

(I'm indulging in somewhat off-topic sour griping)

Best not to use this kind of snark, imo.

This comes close to playing the "loser" card, which is mean-spirited.

When I was having a hard time of it, I took a job as a clerk in a bookstore, and the belligerent, superior attitude of some of the customers--especially the "successful" ones--was the worst part of the job. Not the pay or the waste of time.

Despite my accomplishments, high IQ, and many years of experience, I had to put up with--among others--a doctor who considered himself to be a "music lover", who would shout "Get me someone who knows something about MUSIC!" at me, if I hadn't heard of the book or score he wanted.

Those people doing those low status jobs that people love to make fun of might be there for all kinds of reasons, none of which you will know, none of which should be made fun of.

The whole idea of status is contemptible, anyway.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I said it before; he's see-sawing, from his old claim, to a new claim, back to his old claim, if you look at his posts. I don't see improvement, I see tactics.

Mostly, I just see repeated assertions with no supporting argumentation at all.

Compare that to the discussion to the one on this thread (especially the later pages). There, it's more like whack-a-mole (address Fermi's Paradox, address the necessity of a Mars, address the abundance of heavier elements, address the relative nature of "rare" in context of the big numbers, etc.), but at least the person arguing a similar position* there is making actual arguments.

*ETA: Not the same though. He's saying something more like, we are probably unique in the galaxy. Not nearly as severe a position as that of Makaya.

 

[Sunstealer]

Makaya simply doesn't understand how big the numbers involved are. He hasn't any understanding of probability and chance. He hasn't said why Earth is unique he just spouts personal incredulity. If he thinks the Drake Equation is woo then I'd like to see him come up with his own equations and mathematics to support the premise that Earth is the only place where (intelligent) life can form.

Maths I want to see the maths. However I can guarantee that there won't be any because he's a) incapable of doing the sums because he doesn't understand the numbers involved b) the maths will show that the chance of life is greater than zero.

It's a pointless waste of time arguing because he is incapable of grasping that the universe is incredibly large and that there are enormous numbers of stars that will have a percentage of planets that at some point in their lives will contain the conditions for life to start and evolve. It happened on earth so why are we special or any different to anywhere else?

I think Makaya really wants to feel special, and is willing to go to any length to do so.

Oh he's speshul alright.

 

[makaya325]

Makaya simply doesn't understand how big the numbers involved are. He hasn't any understanding of probability and chance. He hasn't said why Earth is unique he just spouts personal incredulity. If he thinks the Drake Equation is woo then I'd like to see him come up with his own equations and mathematics to support the premise that Earth is the only place where (intelligent) life can form.

Maths I want to see the maths. However I can guarantee that there won't be any because he's a) incapable of doing the sums because he doesn't understand the numbers involved b) the maths will show that the chance of life is greater than zero.

It's a pointless waste of time arguing because he is incapable of grasping that the universe is incredibly large and that there are enormous numbers of stars that will have a percentage of planets that at some point in their lives will contain the conditions for life to start and evolve. It happened on earth so why are we special or any different to anywhere else?


Oh he's speshul alright.

Yeah, the universe is large alright, but most of it is empty between galaxies.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, the universe is large alright, but most of it is empty between galaxies.

So, you're suggesting that the space *within* the galaxies is not large? That, if we just take the space inhabited by galaxies and nothing else, then we wouldn't have a lot of it?

Think about what you're implying very carefully, young man.

Shoot, you do nothing but continually change the topic over and over again to avoid having to correct yourself on other unsupported claims, but each time you bring up a new one, you just bring up yet something else that's easily shown to be wrong...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, the universe is large alright, but most of it is empty between galaxies.

So? The mass of the galaxies is tremendous compared to what it takes to make a planet hospitable to life.

If anything, the empty space only serves to undermine arguments like Fermi's Paradox. Stuff is so spread apart, you can't make so much out of absence of evidence for ET intelligence or complex life.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I look up to Hard atheists like dawkins, dennett, and sagan

Sadly, you seem to lack in key qualities that made (make) these people worthy of looking up to. Consistent logic and imagination being chief amongst them.

Calebprime, you are correct. My apologies for the snark.

 

[Lonewulf]

LarianLeQuella...

I find it amusing when you talk about Dawkins and imagination. While I agree that Dawkins has plenty of consistent logic, and indeed has imagination, "Unweaving the Rainbow" was rather hostile towards JRR Tolkien, and specifically, "re-envisioning" mythology as LotR did.

Considering your avatar, and your purported interests on your website...