have they found anything?

[jhunter1163]

(our own civilization is not detectable with current technology beyond our solar system)

As mentioned before, this is untrue. In radio frequencies, the Earth is far brighter than the Sun. A civilization capable of radio astronomy within, say, 80 light years of Earth would have little trouble picking up our radio signals. Whether they would conclude the signals were from an intelligent civilization is another question entirely. They would, however, surely be detectable.

I doubt such a civilization exists, but it is chauvinistic to assume that just because we can't detect Earthlike planets at interstellar distances, E.T. couldn't do it.

For the record, I believe that intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist in the Milky Way: the statistical argument in favor of it (to me) is quite compelling. The problem of detection, however, may well be insurmountable (at least in our lifetimes).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As mentioned before, this is untrue. In radio frequencies, the Earth is far brighter than the Sun. A civilization capable of radio astronomy within, say, 80 light years of Earth would have little trouble picking up our radio signals. Whether they would conclude the signals were from an intelligent civilization is another question entirely. They would, however, surely be detectable.

Signals we sent out 80 years ago (1929) would just now be reaching a star 80 light years away. According to this source, broadband broadcasts (like radio and TV) would be undetectable beyond our own solar system even with a radio telescope 100 times the sensitivity of Arecibo.

ETA: And, as previously pointed out, MOST of the stars in the galaxy lie much further away than 80 light years. We've only been broadcasting radio waves for about 100 years. The claim was that beings "a great distance" from us could easily detect life is false. Most stars "a great distance" from us haven't even received light from our sun emitted when humans existed. Sure you could assume some magic technology that allows them to grab those signals long before they reach them, but that's not what I would call "with comparative ease".

I doubt such a civilization exists, but it is chauvinistic to assume that just because we can't detect Earthlike planets at interstellar distances, E.T. couldn't do it.

It is equally fallacious to assume that something which is impossible to us is not only possible but "easy" for an ET intelligence. Especially if this is then used in an argument that says we are unique in the galaxy. (The standard is intelligence like us, not intelligence far in advance of us. Argument based on the absence of evidence is weak enough, but this is moving the goalposts.)

ETA: This is the same problem I have with using the Fermi Paradox as "proof" that ET intelligence doesn't exist. It assumes the existence of technology that is impossible by current understand. I'm not asserting that means it is certainly impossible, but it's a weak argument that assume something like that. (And assumes that if it's possible it will happen--as if there were no other barriers to achieving anything that is possible, such as economic limitations, civilizations not enduring long enough to achieve all that is possible technologically, lack of will to do such a thing, etc.)

For the record, I believe that intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist in the Milky Way: the statistical argument in favor of it (to me) is quite compelling. The problem of detection, however, may well be insurmountable (at least in our lifetimes).

I don't know whether it exists or not. Assuming that we are somehow special or unique hasn't panned out in the past, and there's no reason to think that something like what happened here can't happen elsewhere.

I agree with you that even if intelligent life is relatively "common" we are still not likely ever to encounter it because things are so spread out in space and time. (My issue with the term "rare" is that it is a relative term. That's why I'm focusing on amb's assertion in absolute terms: that we are unique in the galaxy and there are probably no more than 12 such intelligences in the entire universe.)

 

[Radrook]

Our solar system is nothing special,.....

What do you base that conclusion on? The observation or detection of thousands of solar systems identical to ours? If so, can you please tell us which solar systems these are? As far as I know most discovered planetary systems are composed of planets having highly-eliptical orbits. But if you know something I don't....

BTW

To classify something as nothing special requires that we show that solar systems which include earthlike planets are common. By earhglike I don't mean just similar orbital distance to its star, or rotational inclination with a cratered humanly unihabitable devastated lifeless surface. But truly earthlike in the full sense of the word. Do you have one at least to tell us about?

 

[Radrook]

Doesn't the Bible make all extraterrestrial aliens angels?

It describes angels as immaterial. So that definitely separates them from the concept of material aliens who might be living on other planets. That it doesn't mention material aliens living on other planets might be because they are totally irrelevant to our future and we to theirs since our assignment-from a biblical standpoint is to tend to the earth as perhaps it's their responsibility to tend to the individual realms as assigned by the ID. But of course that's just conjecture on my part albeit based firmly on what I know of the scriptures.

 

[Radrook]

Oh right--people who rely strictly on the scriptures have never had to adjust their views to accommodate advances in science.

Relying strictly on misunderstandings. BTW Joe. how many times have you had to readjust your perception of the universe in order to accommodate advancements in science? I mean, advancements in science are going on all the time and I'm more than sure you can't keep up with each and every one of them. For example, what will you do when they find out-if they ever do-what dark matter really is? Or if they happen to confirm the existence of the dimensions they are hypothesizing about? Or even totally discard the Big Bang as they did with the Steady State Theory?
Couldn't it be then said that you had to readjust your views because you were relying strictly on what science was telling you once? How would your misunderstanding differ from those who misinterpret scripture to mean what it doesn't? Both, after all, lead to false belief or a false perception of reality don't they?
Care t explain?

 

[Radrook]

....both using it NOT in the meaning of a suspension of the normal laws of nature.

Do you consider the so-called normal laws of nature to have been suddenly suspended when they found out that stars were orbiting galaxies so fast in their outer regions that they, according to the normal laws of nature, should be careening off into interstellar space? That the detectable matter needed to keep such stars gravitionally bound isn't sufficient to account for that normal, natural-law-defying phenomenon?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Care t explain?

Sure. Science is self-correcting. As a skeptic all the "conclusions" I hold are held provisionally. I'm willing to scrap them based on the evidence. The evidence is what leads me to hold them in the first place.

Changes in scientific knowledge is consistent with the method of science.

Religious doctrine, however, is dogmatic. It is held to be changeless, yet it is required to change as science takes more and more of its subject matter and religion continues to retreat to the gaps in our knowledge.

Changes in religious belief aren't consistent with dogmatically-derived (divine revelation or whatever) conclusions.

 

[Radrook]

But what about the question I posed. If God made human nature and did the whole forbidden fruit thing (knowing human nature and knowing the future), then wouldn't you think he'd make the same mistake (or devious plan) with his other creations?

The original human nature biblically described is not the human nature that developed after the fall. If it had been then the biblical ID could not have pronounced it good. In short, scripturally we have to assume that the biblically described ID gifts all his intelligent creatures with flawless or perfect bodies and intellects. That any subsequent flaw they develop is due to their misuse of their freedom of choice which has a detrimental effect on their organism causing it to deteriorate and ultimately die.

About knowing the future, the ID might be able to do all things which are doable. Does that include seeing the unseeable future? That depends on whether the future is indeed seeable or not. If it isn't, under certain circumstances than almightiness would have absolutely no effect on it just as it doesn't have an effect on squaring of a circle.

Then wouldn't those beings need a savior too? Not Jesus, but another incarnation of God--or another "person" to add to the trinity.

Scripturally it would seem to indicate that they would need a different sacrifice. An
alien life given on their behalf in order to cover their sins.

 

[Radrook]

Sure. Science is self-correcting. As a skeptic all the "conclusions" I hold are held provisionally. I'm willing to scrap them based on the evidence. The evidence is what leads me to hold them in the first place.

Changes in scientific knowledge is consistent with the method of science.

Religious doctrine, however, is dogmatic. It is held to be changeless, yet it is required to change as science takes more and more of its subject matter and religion continues to retreat to the gaps in our knowledge.

Changes in religious belief aren't consistent with dogmatically-derived (divine revelation or whatever) conclusions.

No, I wasn't referring to the methods involved in arriving at conclusions. I am referring to the need for religious adjustment you condemned. You claim that science is self correcting. Granted. I never said it isn't. However, it's being self-correcting doesn't prevent it from dogmatically claiming things as truth that it later has to discard as untruths and start all over again does it?

Now, you might claim that this is superior to the religious arrival at a better understanding. But if examined closely the result is the same. A former belief is replaced with one perceived as more accurate. Both were wrong at the outset and both adjusted when they needed to--didn't they? So if the objection to the religious increase in accurate knowledge is that it is rejecting formerly held beliefs, then there is no difference between the twain and both science and religion stand condemned on that same ground.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I wasn't referring to the methods involved in arriving at conclusions. I am referring to the need for religious adjustment you condemned. You claim that science is self correcting. Granted. I never said it isn't. However, it's being self-correcting doesn't prevent it from dogmatically claiming things as truth that it later has to discard as untruths and start all over again does it?

Yes it does. If someone is dogmatically claiming something is true, it isn't science.

Now, you might claim that this is superior to the religious arrival at a better understanding. But if examined closely the result is the same.

The result is definitely NOT the same.

A former belief is replaced with one perceived as more accurate. Both were wrong at the outset and both adjusted when they needed to--didn't they? So if the objection to the religious increase in accurate knowledge is that it is rejecting formerly held beliefs, then there is no difference between the twain and both science and religion stand condemned on that same ground.

But did the religious adjustment happen because of new divine revelation? Not in regards to what I've been talking about (beliefs regarding the natural world--science has nothing to say about the casting out of Lucifer and so on). It happened because science proved that some of the tenets of religion (dogma, that is, or divinely-revealed "truth") were false.

Result of conclusions on the natural world derived by science: modern medicine, computer technology, transportation, food production capable of sustaining our massive population, etc.

Result of conclusions on the natural world derived by religion: creationism, creation science, young-earth geology, wrong ideas about linguistics, zoology, astronomy, etc.

The result is not the same.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The original human nature biblically described is not the human nature that developed after the fall. If it had been then the biblical ID could not have pronounced it good.

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

Does that include seeing the unseeable future?

According to the Bible, yes. According to most theists, yes. According to the prophets, yes.

That depends on whether the future is indeed seeable or not.

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?

Scripturally it would seem to indicate that they would need a different sacrifice. An
alien life given on their behalf in order to cover their sins.

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

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?

 

[CodeSculptor]

Like Puppy says, all expenditures could be used elsewhere.

Prior to SETI, were we looking for alternative sources of energy? Surely we knew that we needed new sources of energy, right?

 

[Lonewulf]

Now, you might claim that this is superior to the religious arrival at a better understanding. But if examined closely the result is the same.

All of the popes and all of the Catholic Church, since its conception, with every other religious follower throughout time...

compared to Galileo, Aristotle, Copernicus, and Newton alone... hmmmm...

No, I think the historical record shows something quite different.

 

[Lonewulf]

Like Puppy says, all expenditures could be used elsewhere.

Prior to SETI, were we looking for alternative sources of energy? Surely we knew that we needed new sources of energy, right?

Let's say that we scrapped SETI, and spent all the money on alternative sources of energy (since we aren't doing that now, I guess), removing poverty, etc.

When would SETI then be funded again? What criteria would we have, before we decide that we should further our understanding of science by probing for alien life?

 

[arthwollipot]

What do you base that conclusion on? The observation or detection of thousands of solar systems identical to ours? If so, can you please tell us which solar systems these are? As far as I know most discovered planetary systems are composed of planets having highly-eliptical orbits. But if you know something I don't....

BTW

To classify something as nothing special requires that we show that solar systems which include earthlike planets are common. By earhglike I don't mean just similar orbital distance to its star, or rotational inclination with a cratered humanly unihabitable devastated lifeless surface. But truly earthlike in the full sense of the word. Do you have one at least to tell us about?

This might help: Mediocrity principle^WP.

 

[amb]

Now, do you care to address the issue of how there was enough time for complex life to arise on Earth but not enough time anywhere else in the galaxy?

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.
We only have one example of this so far which is Earth, just the right distance from it's star to keep it's water liquid. not too hot that it would escape into space as vapour.
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.
Also, an advanced civilization millions of years ahead of us technology wise would have little trouble in scanning the heavens for life bearing planets.
Look at what the Hubble telescope has done for astronomy in the short lifespan it has had so far.

 

[Soapy Sam]

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

So far SETI seems to have produced one informative result- that intelligent life is either not aswarm in our neighbourhood, or is keeping a low profile.

Of course, if it turned out only one intelligent species existed in each galaxy at a time, that would still imply billions of such species, but would also imply zero likelihood of communication.
The further out we look, the larger the volume, so the higher the chance of something being there- but also the bigger the effect necessary to see it.

Maybe the tendency to erect monuments or beacons on high places is not a sign of intelligence, merely a uniquely human quirk.

Maybe, we are wrong to suppose the life / intelligent life division covers all possibilities. Life can develop intelligence; we know this because we are an example of it. Maybe life can do things we have no examples of. Maybe intelligence need not require life?
Maybe sufficiently advanced life genuinely IS magic?

I don't know if such questions have meaningful answers.
I doubt SETI can find them.
Meanwhile, it's better than nothing and the distributed computing system runs (at least for me) without the infuriatingly frequent failures of Folding at Home.

 

[Radrook]

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

Why quasi?

 

[Radrook]

All of the popes and all of the Catholic Church, since its conception, with every other religious follower throughout time...

compared to Galileo, Aristotle, Copernicus, and Newton alone... hmmmm...

No, I think the historical record shows something quite different.

Of course it does. But not in the narrow area I'm speaking about.

 

[Radrook]

This might help: Mediocrity principle^WP.

Thanx for the informative link. Will get back to you on it later today.