have they found anything?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Carbon based molecules in terrestial life have two limitations. They cannot obtain liquid water essential for their well being below freezing point. And they start to break down above a few hundred degrees C.
This narrow range of temperatures makes them suitable for life on Earth like planets only.
Remember, life began when organic molecules, molecules containing carbon, slowly began to assemble in liquid water. Carbon has an extraordinary ability to form compounds with other elements.
Water [liquid] is essential for any kind of life to begin.

This last doesn't follow from what you have just said. You can't possibly know this.

We only have one example of this so far which is Earth, just the right distance from it's[sic] star to keep it's[sic] water liquid. not too hot that it would escape into space as vapour.

Yes, and the fact that this is the only one we know about doesn't preclude something similar from happening elsewhere. (It might be due to the known limitation on what we know about the galaxy rather than a hypothetical limitation on the incidence of intelligent life in the galaxy.) In fact, we know it's possible by the example of the Earth, so we know the probability of life in the galaxy is not zero.

Talk all you want about carbon and liquid water, but you've done nothing to show that these things (much less other types of bio-chemistry) are impossible elsewhere in the galaxy.

I have already explained why the Earth may be unique in the galaxy, and why we may be on one of the first planets to produce animal life.

It may be, but it may not be. If that's all you're arguing, I agree with you. You've done nothing to argue that the Earth is unique. Everything you've put forward as evidence that the Earth is unique has been refuted.

Also, an advanced civilization millions of years ahead of us technology wise would have little trouble in scanning the heavens for life bearing planets.

Yes, you've argued relying on technology millions of years ahead of us before, and that point has been utterly refuted. I'll list a number of objections again:
1) The technology you're assuming might not be possible for anyone ever (you're positing FTL "scanning" at the very least)
2) It might be that technological civilizations don't last for millions of years
3) Even if the civilization lasts long enough, and the technology is possible, there is no guarantee that they'd be motivated to achieve it (for economic or other reasons we don't know of)
4) It's a big haystack--there could be these super-advanced civilizations all over the galaxy, and we "just" missed them by a few hundred thousand years
5) The claim "the Earth is unique" means that there are no other civilizations at least as advanced as ours; using the absence of evidence argument like this, you're moving the goalposts to say that "if there are no super-advanced civilizations, then the Earth is unique". There could be Earth-like technological civilizations even in our neighborhood even right this minute and we'd fail to detect them (and they us). It's moving the goalposts to assume that they must be super-advanced.

Again, please don't assert this "they must be able to detect us" (a minor modification of the argument based on Fermi's Paradox) without addressing each of these points.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Interesting how SETI threads / discussions tend to wander into quasi theology.

That's OK, some quasi-theology threads end up talking about ET intelligence.

Radrook and I were talking via PM about splitting this stuff about the theological ramifications of finding ET intelligent life into another thread. Seems like a lot of work. . . for someone.

 

[amb]

The question has still not been answered why out of the perhaps a billion species that have ever lived on the Earth, only one has developed a technology enough to ponder these very questions. intelligence taken as a given in the cosmos is I believe naive.
In 1985 Ernst Mayr published an essay illustrating the incredible improbability of intelligent life ever to have evolved, even on Earth, by representing the history of life on Earth, by representing the history of life on Earth on a calendar year:
1 January-Origin of Earth.
27 February- Life [prokaryotes]
4 September- Eukaryotes
17 November- Chordates
21 November- Vertebrates
12 December- Mammals
26 December- Primates
30 December at 1am- Anthropoids
31 December at 10 am- Hominids
31 December at 11:56:30 pm- Humans
This shows that humans only occupy 0.025 of the total history of the Earth.
What Mayr is explaining is, although the possibility is not absolute zero that intellingence has sprang up elsewhere, he is pointing out that in his opinion as a biologist's is that the probabilities are close to zero from an evolutionary point of view.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The question has still not been answered why out of the perhaps a billion species that have ever lived on the Earth, only one has developed a technology enough to ponder these very questions.

And I've shown that this approach doesn't further your argument in the least. You just change the Drake equation from considering number of planets to considering the total number of species. It doesn't make intelligence any less likely than just treating the Earth as 1 for 1.

intelligence taken as a given in the cosmos is I believe naive.

I agree.

I also think considering ourselves to be unique in the galaxy is a naive and unsupported proposition.

This shows that humans only occupy 0.025 of the total history of the Earth.

While I think this is an important point in considering the significance of SETI results to date, it still does nothing to support the proposition that we are unique in the galaxy.

Yes, it took a long time for tech-using life to evolve on Earth. However, there is still nothing unique about the Earth--there has certainly not been more time passed here than elsewhere.

If anything, this approach sure points out the horrible flaws in your arguments that assume that if intelligence like ours existed elsewhere that it would necessarily be millions of years ahead of ours (technologically).

 

[Radrook]

Here are the reasons why I find the mediocrity principle illogical:

1. Hasty conclusion based on unrepresentative evidence.

2. Unjustifiable conclusion based on scanty evidence.

Let's consider the first:


Unrepresentative Evidence:

The idea attempts to include the earth, with its interlocking of infinite phenomenon as a common universal pattern based on the observation of infinitely less complex phenomenon.


Let's consider the second.

Scanty Evidence:
It extrapolates what is observed in this minute detectable part of the universe to all possible realms of existence while paradoxically admitting ignorance of and even suggesting the possibilities or probabilities of multiverses, dimensionalities, subtle or extreme deviations from observed laws of nature.

BTW
My delay in responding was caused by inability to log on.

 

[Smackety]

Here are the reasons why I find the mediocrity principle illogical:

1. Hasty conclusion based on unrepresentative evidence.

2. Unjustifiable conclusion based on scanty evidence.

Let's consider the first:


Unrepresentative Evidence:

The idea attempts to include the earth, with its interlocking of infinite phenomenon as a common universal pattern based on the observation of infinitely less complex phenomenon.


Let's consider the second.

Scanty Evidence:
It extrapolates what is observed in this minute detectable part of the universe to all possible realms of existence while paradoxically admitting ignorance of and even suggesting the possibilities or probabilities of multiverses, dimensionalities, subtle or extreme deviations from observed laws of nature.

BTW
My delay in responding was caused by inability to log on.

You sound like an atheist. Well said.

 

[theneedtoknow]

Originally Posted by amb
Carbon based molecules in terrestial life have two limitations. They cannot obtain liquid water essential for their well being below freezing point. And they start to break down above a few hundred degrees C.
This narrow range of temperatures makes them suitable for life on Earth like planets only.
Remember, life began when organic molecules, molecules containing carbon, slowly began to assemble in liquid water. Carbon has an extraordinary ability to form compounds with other elements.
Water [liquid] is essential for any kind of life to begin.




This last doesn't follow from what you have just said. You can't possibly know this.

The reason why this is true is because of
a) the polarization of the water molecule has shown to be important for life on earth, since the slight polarization seems to hold the membranes of cells together...in fact when we put cells in any other liquids which are considered canditates for life potential (ammonia, ethane, methane) the membranes fall apart and can't keep the cell together...so that hints that to create even a single cell you might need water
b) the unique property of water of decreasing in density betweek 4 and 0 degrees ...early life needs to be protected while it forms in the water, and because ice is less dence than the freezing water, it forms a layer on the surface instead of sinking to the bottom, which helps keep the water below in a liquid phase and allows life to keep existing and evolving slowly below while mellowing the conditions of the changing environment of the planet
and c)water has a wider range of temperates than any of the 3 aforementioend canditates in which is exists in its liquid stage, making it more likely to stay liquid for long enough to allow life to form. Moreover, it has the highest boiling and freezing temperatures, which means that in its liquid stage it is hottest out of any possible "life" liquids. Chemical reactions are more likely to occur and proceed faster in higher temperature...they double in speed about every 10 degrees...the reason why this is so significant is because the next "warmest" liquid is ammonia with a boiling point of -33 celcius...thats a 130 degree difference with water...as the reaction rate doubles about every 10 degrees, that means that reactions in water would proceed 2^13 = 8192 times faster...now imagine how long it took for life to evolve on earth...and imagine it evolving 8192 times slower...there is definitely no types of stars that have anywhere even close to that kind of lifespan

So yeah i think water is quite important for life

 

[Radrook]

So omniscient, omnipotent God created mankind, set up the forbidden fruit tree right there, and didn't know they'd eat from it?

The possibility was there not the certainty.

Does that include seeing the unseeable future? According to the Bible, yes. According to most theists, yes. According to the prophets, yes.

If the ID you are positing can see the future then it isn't unseeable.

That's sort of just playing games with the words. There's plenty of things that are unknowable to humans. The point of claiming God is omniscient and omnipotent was to show that his powers are greater than man's. So are you saying God can only know the things that are possible to be known by man?

No, I'm merely saying that some things are impossible regardless of the wisdom or power one uses t try to make them possible. Like the squaring of a circle. Or paradoxes such as being in total nonexistence and existence at the same time. Or being supremely good and supremely evil. Actually the scriptures do state two things that it are impossible for the ID to do.


To lie and to die.


Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

1 Timothy 6:16
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

I must've missed that part of the scriptures. Where's it say that?

It's a concept based on what was required in order to redeem mankind-someone that was also of born of mankind and bore the physical likeness of mankind. That's why Jesus is called the last Adam. Because he needed to assume Adam's likeness
in order to redeem us. If indeed aliens are in a similar situation as we were before we were redeemed, then it is scriptural to conclude that the scripturally described ID will resort to the same method if applicable. A sacrifice offered by someone born in their likeness.

At any rate, if that's so, would that change the doctrine of the Trinity? There would be the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Son and the BEM?

If mankind finds that there have been extraterrestrial creatures for which the ID has provided a ransom sacrifice, mankind need not conclude that the sacrifice was given by the same person which gave himself for us. As long as the volunteer meets the physical and psychological criteria required, then it would qualify for the job. Neither does the manner of death have to be identical to what Jesus suffered. The manner of death Jesus suffered was tied in to the Law Covenant and Israel's inability to follow it perfectly. Only if the aliens had been given a similar covenant can the same sequence of events lead to that death requirement albeit culturally determined. If indeed establishment of a law covenant between the ID and the aliens prior to redemption is inseparable from the redemption process will the death suffered by Jesus have to be similarly repeated. That assumes, of course, that the these aliens share identical psychology to us or that the only way that the ID can create creatures in his likeness is to give them a psychology we have come to consider human.

BTW

Since angels aren't described as human and are called his sons, then scripturally one need not be human to be a son of the ID.

 

[paximperium]

The possibility was there not the certainty.

Therefore your god is not omniscience. End of story.

No, I'm merely saying that some things are impossible regardless of the wisdom or power one uses t try to make them possible. Like the squaring of a circle. Or paradoxes such as being in total nonexistence and existence at the same time. Or being supremely good and supremely evil.

So your god is retarded by things like logic? What a weak god you have since, "poof!" your god logically is no longer omni anything.

Since when have you or any theist ever been hampered by silly logic.

 

[Radrook]

That's OK, some quasi-theology threads end up talking about ET intelligence.
Radrook and I were talking via PM about splitting this stuff about the theological ramifications of finding ET intelligent life into another thread. Seems like a lot of work. . . for someone.

Here is an interesting commentary:

What is Judaisms view on intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geul....com/question/index?qid=20090103002729AAER6nj


Here is a more extensive article:
Excerpt:

Christianity And Extraterrestrials
Given the antiquity of the question, we might be even more surprised to find that the Catholic Church has never issued any formal pronouncement, one way or the other, about the existence of extraterrestrial life.Yet unofficial pronouncements have recently come from respected sources connected to (but not speaking for) the Vatican. Rev. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Astronomic Observatory, considers the possibility of extraterrestrials an "exciting prospect, which must be treated with caution.... The universe is so large that it would be folly to say that we are the exception." Rev. Christopher Corbally, S.J., another astronomer at the Vatican Observatory, believes that if we discover extraterrestrials, it will entail an expansion of our theology, for "while Christ is the First and the Last Word (the Alpha and the Omega) spoken to humanity, he is not necessarily the only word spoken to the whole universe." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/808178/posts?page=72

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The reason why this is true is because of
a) the polarization of the water molecule has shown to be important for life on earth,
<snip>
So yeah i think water is quite important for life

Extending any conclusion about "life on Earth" to "any kind of life" (the words amb used) is carrying the conclusion beyond the dataset.

At any rate, I also said that even if these conditions are necessary, there's no evidence that these conditions are only possible here and not elsewhere in the galaxy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The possibility was there not the certainty.

You quote the Bible in your reply, so I assume that's the type of omniscience you're talking about. There is it claimed that God knows the future. So he would have been certain that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit.

If the ID you are positing can see the future then it isn't unseeable.

I'm not positing any ID. (By the way--by ID you mean "God" right? Let's be honest. If you're talking about "God" don't use the weasel term "ID".)
As I mentioned, the Bible claims that God knows the future. Many believers claim that God knows the future. The prophets certainly claim that God knows the future (and further, that their writings are an expression of that bit of God's knowledge divinely revealed to the prophet).

No, I'm merely saying that some things are impossible regardless of the wisdom or power one uses t try to make them possible. Like the squaring of a circle. Or paradoxes such as being in total nonexistence and existence at the same time. Or being supremely good and supremely evil. Actually the scriptures do state two things that it are impossible for the ID to do.

Yes, but whether or not Adam would eat the forbidden fruit isn't one of those paradoxical things.

In the Bible, future events of mankind are claimed to have been known by God. How could he have known them if he didn't know that the Fall would happen?

If the future is not predetermined (and is thus unknowable) then it would always be impossible for God ever to know the future, yet there are abundant claims that he does.

It's a concept based on what was required in order to redeem mankind-someone that was also of born of mankind and bore the physical likeness of mankind. That's why Jesus is called the last Adam. Because he needed to assume Adam's likeness
in order to redeem us. If indeed aliens are in a similar situation as we were before we were redeemed, then it is scriptural to conclude that the scripturally described ID will resort to the same method if applicable. A sacrifice offered by someone born in their likeness.

But the scripture doesn't say anything about ET intelligent aliens, right? In fact, it shows a model of the universe where the Earth is flat, the sun goes around the Earth (and can stop sometimes), etc. In fact, it doesn't even allow for the possibility of other planets going around other stars (or that the Sun is in fact a star).

As I said, religious dogma has already had to be drastically overhauled to accommodate science (and those that aren't continue to rant and rave about a young-earth, dinosaurs wearing saddles, "kinds" that aren't species, and so on).

If an alien intelligence is ever discovered, I expect there will be even more revising and adapting. (And I expect there won't be a consensus among the most scholarly religious people on these big questions.)

If mankind finds that there have been extraterrestrial creatures for which the ID has provided a ransom sacrifice, mankind need not conclude that the sacrifice was given by the same person which gave himself for us. As long as the volunteer meets the physical and psychological criteria required, then it would qualify for the job. Neither does the manner of death have to be identical to what Jesus suffered. The manner of death Jesus suffered was tied in to the Law Covenant and Israel's inability to follow it perfectly. Only if the aliens had been given a similar covenant can the same sequence of events lead to that death requirement albeit culturally determined. If indeed establishment of a law covenant between the ID and the aliens prior to redemption is inseparable from the redemption process will the death suffered by Jesus have to be similarly repeated. That assumes, of course, that the these aliens share identical psychology to us or that the only way that the ID can create creatures in his likeness is to give them a psychology we have come to consider human.

And other religious people will come up with other ways of accommodating the new information.

Does your approach change the idea of the Trinity?

Please stop using the term ID. You're talking about the concept "God" as used in the Bible, right? It's a very dishonest way of using the language, I think. (We all know the "ID" stuff is just a substitute for "Creationism" which was deemed by the courts to be a religious doctrine and not science. The Dover case shows that "ID" is just "Creationism" renamed.)

 

[Beerina]

The question has still not been answered why out of the perhaps a billion species that have ever lived on the Earth, only one has developed a technology enough to ponder these very questions. intelligence taken as a given in the cosmos is I believe naive.
In 1985 Ernst Mayr published an essay illustrating the incredible improbability of intelligent life ever to have evolved, even on Earth, by representing the history of life on Earth, by representing the history of life on Earth on a calendar year:
1 January-Origin of Earth.
27 February- Life [prokaryotes]
4 September- Eukaryotes
17 November- Chordates
21 November- Vertebrates
12 December- Mammals
26 December- Primates
30 December at 1am- Anthropoids
31 December at 10 am- Hominids
31 December at 11:56:30 pm- Humans
This shows that humans only occupy 0.025 of the total history of the Earth.
What Mayr is explaining is, although the possibility is not absolute zero that intellingence has sprang up elsewhere, he is pointing out that in his opinion as a biologist's is that the probabilities are close to zero from an evolutionary point of view.

I don't know if that reasoning holds true. 80% of the work was just getting to multi-celled stuff. From there, chordates and the rest followed quickly.

In any case, the proper time comparison isn't basically a few seconds after humans began to exist and analyze themselves. There's a long, long future ahead. So for both reasons, his statistical judgment is not valid for the data presented.

 

[Radrook]

You quote the Bible in your reply, so I assume that's the type of omniscience you're talking about. There is it claimed that God knows the future. So he would have been certain that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit.

Actually, I wasn't referring to any omniscience. I believe that someone else brought in the omniscience requirement. The reason I quite the Bible in my reply is because someone said he can't remember where what I said was said in the Bible said it. So to avoid that objection after the biblical standpoint had been brought in by someone else I quoted the Bible. Within that context then, my understanding is that God's knowing would be in violation his goodness. Also, my understanding is that he could not have known based on the perfection of Adam and Eve since they gave no indications of flaw upon which t base that certainty. Others of course might have a different understanding but that's mine and is the one which makes most sense to me since the others seem to create serious scriptural inconsistencies.

I'm not positing any ID. (By the way--by ID you mean "God" right? Let's be honest. If you're talking about "God" don't use the weasel term "ID".)

I don't use words to weasel out of facing the crux of subjects. The term ID is used because it is more encompassing than the term "God." Since this thread isn't religiously oriented, it would seem out of place to use the term God. So I use the term ID which can mean any intelligent designer and not necessarily the one described by religion.

As I mentioned, the Bible claims that God knows the future. Many believers claim that God knows the future. The prophets certainly claim that God knows the future (and further, that their writings are an expression of that bit of God's knowledge divinely revealed to the prophet).

Yes, but that is the human future after mankind became predictable based on its inherent flaws.

]
Yes, but whether or not Adam would eat the forbidden fruit isn't one of those paradoxical things.

I never claimed that Adam and Eve's fall is paradoxical.

In the Bible, future events of mankind are claimed to have been known by God. How could he have known them if he didn't know that the Fall would happen?

Because Adam and Eve weren't inherently predictable. Furthermore, many Biblical predictions are based on God's direct or indirect interference in mankind's affairs in order to guarantee the predicted future.

If the future is not predetermined (and is thus unknowable) then it would always be impossible for God ever to know the future, yet there are abundant claims that he does.

That's because sinful humans are predictable while flawless creatures are not.

BTW
It's quite easy for God to look at human affairs and predict the outcome of their behaviors. But that's because he has data upon which to base that prediction. No data = no prediction. He also makes sure his predictions come true in many instances.

But the scripture doesn't say anything about ET intelligent aliens, right? In fact, it shows a model of the universe where the Earth is flat, the sun goes around the Earth (and can stop sometimes), etc. In fact, it doesn't even allow for the possibility of other planets going around other stars (or that the Sun is in fact a star).

Where does it say those things? Joshua was describing what he saw during a battle. That the sun appeared not to move in the sky. Even today we write of the sun setting and rising as if it were the one doing the moving. Isaiah does mention the earth and tells us that it appears as hovering on nothing. The exact way it appears from outer space. He also speaks of the circle of the earth. Exactly how it appears from outer space. He mentions God stretching out the heavens like a gauze. Exactly how science perceives the aftermath of the Big Bang. It mentions the sun and the stars. That's because the Sun appears as different from the surface of the earth and not like a tiny star. Do we modern humans refer to the sun as the Star when we talk about it? Of course not. Does that mean we reject it as being a star?

As I said, religious dogma has already had to be drastically overhauled to accommodate science (and those that aren't continue to rant and rave about a young-earth, dinosaurs wearing saddles, "kinds" that aren't species, and so on).

I've seen cartoons on TV where dinosaurs wear saddles. I don't watch them. Neither am I a young earthist. Species? Well, they speciated didn't they?

If an alien intelligence is ever discovered, I expect there will be even more revising and adapting. (And I expect there won't be a consensus among the most scholarly religious people on these big questions.)

I never said there would be a consensus.

And other religious people will come up with other ways of accommodating the new information.

Of course.

Does your approach change the idea of the Trinity?

I'm not a Trinitarian.

BTW
My approach on this thread is one which makes room for extraterrestrial life on other planets. Since the issue of redemption was brought up-I responded to it within that extraterrestrial context and from the ID as biblically described. Some say that that ID fits the Trinitarian idea. Others say it does not. If indeed it is ever proven that the biblically described ID has indeed created creatures in its image on other planets and seen the need to redeem, then those holding the Trinitarian view will assume it was done in a manner consistent with that view. Those Christians who don't abide by the Nicene Council decision will view it differently.

Please stop using the term ID. You're talking about the concept "God" as used in the Bible, right? It's a very dishonest way of using the language, I think. (We all know the "ID" stuff is just a substitute for "Creationism" which was deemed by the courts to be a religious doctrine and not science. The Dover case shows that "ID" is just "Creationism" renamed.)

The term ID fits the concept that I am talking about more honestly than the word God does since I'm not necessarily talking about the ID as described by religions. The only reason that the word "God" came up is because the readers assumed I meant "God" and began approaching the subject from that angle forcing me to reply in kind. If the reader could please refrain from assuming I mean "God" or a god, or any other supernatural being as described by religions then the religious angle would never come up.

 

[Radrook]

You sound like an atheist. Well said.

I believe in an ID. Does that disqualify me as an atheist?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's a long, long future ahead.

But we don't know for sure that we (or another radio-technology using intelligent civilization) will be part of that long future.

That's one of my objections to the argument based on Fermi's Paradox. (If any other intelligence exists, it would be older and far in advance of us, and we'd already have evidence of them. Since we don't have that evidence, they don't exist.) We have no idea how long-lived a typical technological intelligent civilization is.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

never claimed that Adam and Eve's fall is paradoxical.

I brought up the problem of omniscience wrt to The Fall. (God made them, but couldn't foresee that they'd eat the forbidden fruit?) You said omniscience doesn't include things that are unknowable, such as paradoxes (like a 4 sided triangle). I'm pointing out that since The Fall is not such a paradox, it should be knowable to an omniscient God.

Because Adam and Eve weren't inherently predictable.

Neither is most of the future, yet there are plenty of claims in the Bible and by theists of all kinds that God does in fact know the future (especially in terms of human events).

That's because sinful humans are predictable while flawless creatures are not.

But if Adam and Eve were flawless, how could they sin?

It's quite easy for God to look at human affairs and predict the outcome of their behaviors. But that's because he has data upon which to base that prediction. No data = no prediction. He also makes sure his predictions come true in many instances.

No way. You're not talking about knowledge now, you're talking about making educated guesses. Omniscience is the claim of knowledge. And the Bible and most theists give this as an attribute of God.

Not that he's just really good at statistics.

Where does it say those things? Joshua was describing what he saw during a battle. That the sun appeared not to move in the sky. Even today we write of the sun setting and rising as if it were the one doing the moving.

Nope, that's not what it says in Joshua:

12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

Do we modern humans refer to the sun as the Star when we talk about it? Of course not.

Yes, in fact we do. Astrophysicists do routinely. I'm a bit of an amateur astronomer myself, and I guarantee you I talk with others of the sun being a star.

My approach on this thread is one which makes room for extraterrestrial life on other planets. Since the issue of redemption was brought up-I responded to it within that extraterrestrial context and from the ID as biblically described.

And I appreciate that. I think after your first comment, someone asked what the religious ramifications would be of discovering ET intelligence, and that's where this side conversation took off.

The term ID fits the concept that I am talking about more honestly than the word God does since I'm not necessarily talking about the ID as described by religions. The only reason that the word "God" came up is because the readers assumed I meant "God" and began approaching the subject from that angle forcing me to reply in kind. If the reader could please refrain from assuming I mean "God" or a god, or any other supernatural being as described by religions then the religious angle would never come up.

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. You're talking about a very specific meaning of God. (And again, this side conversation took off from the question about the religious ramifications of ET intelligence.) ID is just a stand-in for that concept--one that lets you avoid discussing more troublesome aspects of the concept. I can think of no honest use for the term.

 

[amb]

I don't know if that reasoning holds true. 80% of the work was just getting to multi-celled stuff. From there, chordates and the rest followed quickly.

In any case, the proper time comparison isn't basically a few seconds after humans began to exist and analyze themselves. There's a long, long future ahead. So for both reasons, his statistical judgment is not valid for the data presented.

We don't know that. We could become extinct in the next 10.000 years if not sooner. The climate may have something to to do with that as well. Earth may become a runaway green house just like Venus in less than that time frame.
Then there is the problem of religion to overcome. Think Islamic extremists would think twice about unleashing nuclear armed ICBMs?
But presuming that mankind survives for millions of years is my argument for Earth been one of the first to produce an intelligence that will became capable of colonising the galaxy and beyond.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We don't know that. We could become extinct in the next 10.000 years if not sooner. The climate may have something to to do with that as well. Earth may become a runaway green house just like Venus in less than that time frame.
Then there is the problem of religion to overcome. Think Islamic extremists would think twice about unleashing nuclear armed ICBMs?

I agree. We have no idea how long our civilization will last.

But presuming that mankind survives for millions of years is my argument for Earth been one of the first to produce an intelligence that will became capable of colonising the galaxy and beyond.

Why is that? Couldn't there right now be hundreds of civilizations just about like ours throughout the galaxy? Why do you suppose we would be the first? (We're nowhere near capable of interstellar travel right now. There could be others that are much closer--if it's even possible.)

Again, there's no reason that the sort of thing that happened here can't happen elsewhere in the galaxy--and there are an awful lot of elsewheres out there!

 

[LarianLeQuella]

In radio frequencies, the Earth is far brighter than the Sun.

That was something someone speculated about quite a ways back. This: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html would tend to disagree with that statement. That inverse square thing can be a bitch! I guess that statement is true if you are closer to the earth than the sun though, but then how extraterrestral are you then?