Belz...
Fiend God
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there's some form of algae in the reactor at Chernobyl that evolved a way to use gamma radiation as an energy source, or something.
alien life possibility is pathetic
- Thread starter makaya325
- Start date
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there's some form of algae in the reactor at Chernobyl that evolved a way to use gamma radiation as an energy source, or something.
Belz...
Fiend God
I think by this point in the thread it's become obvious that you're just trying to "win" some sort of game in your own mind. I'd like to know how it's played, personally, because it obviously isn't done with arguments and reason.
In other words, what in the name of Ivan Drago's training routine does this have to do with anything ?
You're really not doing well here, are you? Silicon is the third most common element on Earth, making up around 15% of its mass. Carbon is generally included as part of the "Others - 1%" group. If you're just talking about the crust then it's even worse - silicon is the second most abundant element after oxygen, with silicates making up almost 2/3, and the "Others" group, in which carbon is once again included, being even smaller.
As already noted several times, this describes the situation on Earth perfectly. There have been numerous flares (I guess you mention them beacuse you haven't heard of CMEs. Try looking them up.), major impacts, nearby gamma ray bursts and so on throughout Earth's history. These events can certainly cause problems for life, for example, the late heavy bombardment would almost certainly have wiped out any life if it had emerged that early. Given how soon afterwards life did emerge, there is a fair argument to be made that this is actually very likely to have happened. So the answer to your question is, as already answered, 1. It already has happened.
To be fair, gamma ray bursts are a bit of a problem. It doesn't matter what chemistry your life is based on, gamma rays have enough energy to break down the molecular bonds. I assume Makaya is actually refering to gamma ray bursts rather than gamma rays in general, which really aren't an issue. However, the nice thing about grbs is that they're both very rare and highly directional, which means the chance of one affecting any given planet is low. Unfortunately they're not understood all that well. Some estimates place one in the Milky Way as often as every 100,000 years, while others suggest that there haven't been any since the Earth formed. Apparently NASA says it's likely one has affected Earth within the last billion years. Of course, this really doesn't help Makaya's argument.
One particularly fun thing about grbs is that they're short. While a large dose of radiation may not be especially fun, they can't possibly kill everything since at least half of life will be on the other side of the planet. Any mass extinctions would be caused not by the radiation itself, but by the atmospheric changes it would cause. Ironically enough, the claim that the Earth is safer because of its atmosphere may be exactly backwards, since a planet with much less atmosphere, or just a different makeup, could see much less affect from such an event.
IMST
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a W
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 6,326
No. I just gave you reasons to doubt the guarantee of et life's existence. Please show me references that rebute the rare earth theory. Non-biased sources please
The rare earth model contradicts your assertions. Rare is not the same word as unique.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
OK, lets grab all the money currently invested in those foolish wooish exobiology projects and invest it in to something really worthwile, something with actual hard science behind- bigfoot research...
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
OK, lets grab all the money currently invested in those foolish wooish exobiology projects and invest it in to something really worthwile, something with actual hard science behind- bigfoot research...
Oh I agree.....
Since there's no hard evidence of life on other planets, and since space is mostly empty; any scientist is catering to woo when they said there's a chance of intelligent life existing outside the Earth.
But since there's a lot of hear-say evidence of Big Foot, even though there's no hard evidence, any scientist that says Big Foot doesn't exist is just not seeing the "facts".
......ooops. Look at that. I've dropped a big puddle of sarcasm on the forum here..... sorry about that.....
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
I don't believe in it either. We don't have to data to determine if it exists or not.
I argue the very real possibility of mystery apes existing. I dont find it scientific when one doesnt consider both sides.
IMST
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a W
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 6,326
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
*joins you*
Robert Oz
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,455
JFrankA,
I wasn't aware that I had been ignoring questions (unless, I haven't seen questions posed to me). By all means, let me know which questions I have avoided and I will answer them promptly.
I don't spend all that much time on the forum, but I try to answer any questions directly asked of me.
Who do you mean by "we"? I wasn't accusing the whole board of ignoring questions, nor was I accusing makaya325 of ignoring my questions, but rather questions posed by other posters.
Again, please let me know where all these threads I've ignored are. I'll get to them as quickly as possible.
Last edited:
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,415
So was this entire thread merely an exercise in creating an analogy to show us that saying that bigfoot doesn't exist is the same as saying the there is no possibility for alien life on other planets? I had a suspicion that that was what you were going for early on, but I congradulate you nevertheless. I don't say that bigfoot cannot exist, but I think it is unlikely given the amount of land we have explored.
The analogy may fail though, because I don't consider alien life a 100% either until I see proof. I consider it more of a possibility because there are more unknowns in existence in the whole of seemingly infinite space than in the Pacific Northwest. Nevertheless I get your analogy if that was really what you were going for.
The analogy may fail though, because I don't consider alien life a 100% either until I see proof. I consider it more of a possibility because there are more unknowns in existence in the whole of seemingly infinite space than in the Pacific Northwest. Nevertheless I get your analogy if that was really what you were going for.
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
My apologies, Robert Oz, none of the statements you quoted were directed towards you. They were all directed to Makaya325.
I'm sorry.
Robert Oz
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,455
No problem. Thanks for clearing up.
I just went back and read through the posts again and noticed that makaya325 used the quote function incorrectly when quoting me. It did, in fact, look like makaya325 was making the accusation to someone else.
Last edited:
BINGO! We have a winner!
Yes, i was fed up a bit, for people not giving the subject any of their time. Do you know that only 6% of land in US is developed?
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,415
Well my attitude is that of an agnostic on the subject. I am not going to go 100% either way. So good job.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
That would have been a useful ploy if, in fact, those arguing against your position on bigfoot had been arguing that bigfoot cannot, or even definitively does not, exist. Unfortunately, I think that all of those arguing the point are saying that the evidence for bigfoot is bad, and therefore we cannot assert its existence. The analogy to that would not be suggesting that the possibility of alien life is nil, as you started out, but to debunk UFO evidence, a position of little if any controversy here.
Risking going off topic here, but since this has become a pseudo bigfoot thread, I'll add this before heading back to the bush...
What do you mean by "developed?" Sure, my old farmland, Central Park, the Okeefenokee Swamp, and the top of Mt. Rainier are all undeveloped, but that does not say anything useful about where a bigfoot can be hiding. Are you now going to claim that bigfoot is a beast of the prairie, or of the desert?
Even if it's an accurate figure (where gotten, please?) it's still bogus in this context.