• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

have they found anything?

The video I was trying to show was of Dawkins discussing more or less what I have been saying here for months. And that is that the stupendous likelihood of life originating are trillions to one. But because we are here discussing it shows that it has happened, at least once. Also, that the universe is probably teeming with microbial life. But because we at this juncture of time, just aren't sure. Anything is possible in an almost infinate cosmos.
Also, that there may well be a god out there, but this god has evolved from a simple life form to the complexity of whatever it is today.
A civilization that has managed to survive for billions of years would in our eyes be God himself and more.
Then he speaks of the Fermi Paradox. If it was so, why isn't this god/civilization here, now. Surely they would have the curiosity bug to explore the universe for other signs of life. Unless the light speed problem is unsolvable even by a god like civilization they most certainly would have discovered our little planet by now.
 
Last edited:
amb said:
Unless the light speed problem is unsolvable even by a god like civilization they most certainly would have discovered our little planet by now.
Click to expand...
And with that you can prove that it's not likely that a god-like civilization has existed for a long time in our galaxy. However, as I've already shown, a civilization just like our own would be undetectable by us even just beyond our own solar system.

So all of this says absolutely NOTHING about the existence of ET intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. It only says something about god-like intelligent civilizations (which might be an impossible fantasy).
 
" All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by appearance of probability.''

____David Hume
 
amb said:
" All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by appearance of probability.''

____David Hume
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of the claim that there is something unique about the Earth in the galaxy. From what we know, the laws of physics, chemistry and biology are the same everywhere. The same amount of time has passed everywhere.

You should read the Creationist book, The Privileged Planet, and see how similar its way of thinking is to the Rare Earth way of thinking.
 
amb said:
" All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by appearance of probability.''

____David Hume
Click to expand...


You realize that this exact quote can be used AGAINST your position that the earth is somehow unique or rare? :p
 
I have as yet not received a satisfactory answer of why, out of the billions of lifeforms that have ever lived on this planet, [ dinosaurs lived here for around 20 million years] only homo sapiens managed to develop such an intelligence to ask these questions.
I'm far from saying that it's certain we are alone in this almost infinite universe.
I still state that most probably, the cosmos is teeming with microbial life. Perhaps even some kind of animal life. But so far there is not a shred of evidence for any highly intelligent beings such as ourselves.
 
amb said:
I have as yet not received a satisfactory answer of why, out of the billions of lifeforms that have ever lived on this planet, [ dinosaurs lived here for around 20 million years] only homo sapiens managed to develop such an intelligence to ask these questions.
Click to expand...
Natural selection. Also, humans are not the only species to attain intelligence or consciousness as you seem to think. It exists as a continuum among many animals. As I mentioned earlier, you're basically asking why is there only one animal that has the highest level of this collection of traits. That's because only one can be the highest level. It's just like asking why is there only one tallest animal ever to have lived.

I still state that most probably, the cosmos is teeming with microbial life. Perhaps even some kind of animal life. But so far there is not a shred of evidence for any highly intelligent beings such as ourselves.
Click to expand...
There's also not a shred of evidence that the cosmos is teeming with microbial life. You apparently admit to that possibility because you think chemistry and physics works the same elsewhere as it does here. Yet you seem to accord "intelligence" some sort of magical origin not explainable by natural selection and the laws of physics.

I'm far from saying that it's certain we are alone in this almost infinite universe.
Click to expand...
No you're not very far from saying that. Since you're still unwilling to admit that it's entirely possible that there are many intelligent civilizations in the galaxy, you are still arguing that we are unique in the galaxy (and not merely that we may be unique--a position that I don't think anyone disagrees with).
 
Last edited:
I just read about a book called Life Everywhere by David Darling. I've only read about the book (in Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis), but it supposedly gives a point by point refutation of each of the so-called "requirements" for life in Rare Earth.

I'll add this book to my list, but I may not get to it very soon.
 
I've read the book by Stenger, and he discusses both scenarios. But the main theme of that book is the failure of science to prove God. There is not a single clue in all the universe to prove that there is a god. All the evidence available instead proves there is no God.
 
amb said:
I've read the book by Stenger, and he discusses both scenarios. But the main theme of that book is the failure of science to prove God. There is not a single clue in all the universe to prove that there is a god. All the evidence available instead proves there is no God.
Click to expand...
And this has nothing to do with my post. Have you read Darling's book?
 
I just ordered it through Amazon. I see Ward has a book out a well which sounds good seeing he is co-author of ''Rare Earth,'' titled ''Life As We Not Know it.''
I wish I had the time and money. I would order a dozen such books on that page.

It really is a fascinating subject with a hundred differing views.
The book ''Rare Earth'' has not really been criticized as much as I expected by orthodox astrobiologists. Is it because it's possible?
Looking forward to reading Darling's book. I should get it within a week.
 
Just looking at the bit of the Darling book that's available on-line, I think there's just the one chapter that addresses Rare Earth. Without going into the details, I think he's saying about the same thing I am. In this game of speculation, there's probably as much (or more) evidence to speculate that when the "conditions" on the Earth were destabilized or less friendly to existing life forms, that's when you got bigger and faster changes through evolution.

It sounds a lot like punctuated equilibrium.

Where the Rare Earth theory says that in order to get higher forms of life you need to have an exact copy of the Earth as it is now. Darling says, I think, that since life responded well to pretty big changes over the history of the Earth, it could thrive in a lot more diverse environments elsewhere too.
 
Life thrives in impossible places right here on Earth. Microbes inside a volcano, life at the vents at the bottom of the seas where temperature is many thousands degrees F. Tube Worms have been discovered there. There is no oxygen or even sunlight in such places, yet there is life. That bodes well for finding primitive forms of life elsewhere in the the solar system. Microbial life has been found in the frozen wastes of Antarctica miles beneath the surface.
Who knows, there may be bacteria living on our moon deep under the surface away from the damaging ultra violet light and radiation which destroys cells.
A planet with no ozone layer to protect surface life from radiation from it's parent star can only have life deep underground. It would need to be technologically millions of years ahead of us to build any kind of civilization in such conditions, which brings me back to; If they're so far advanced and live within say 100-200 light years distance, surely they would be here by now. Or at least have left some clue of their existence.
Fermi's Paradox is stuck in my very thick skull it appears.
 
amb said:
A planet with no ozone layer to protect surface life from radiation from it's [sic]parent star can only have life deep underground.
Click to expand...
You don't know that. What is this statement based on? Earlier in this thread, I showed you evidence of animals that adapt to radiation and basically produce their own shields in their anatomy.

It would need to be technologically millions of years ahead of us to build any kind of civilization in such conditions,
Click to expand...
Why? This makes no sense at all. There is nothing that requires another technological civilization be at any particular stage with regard to ourselves.

In fact, we don't actually know if "technology millions of years ahead of us" is even possible. It could be that we're close to the end of technological advancement that is possible. It could also be that civilizations tend to wipe themselves out at a certain level of technological development. We simply don't know. Therefore, we shouldn't assume technology that's substantially beyond ours (near lightspeed transportation, time travel, etc.)

which brings me back to; If they're so far advanced and live within say 100-200 light years distance, surely they would be here by now. Or at least have left some clue of their existence.
Fermi's Paradox is stuck in my very thick skull it appears.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I've rebuked your Fermi's Paradox argument numerous times on this thread. The last two times I did so, I numbered the points and requested that you please not bring this failed argument up again without responding to each of my numbered points.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4412527#post4412527
 
amb said:
If they're so far advanced and live within say 100-200 light years distance, surely they would be here by now. Or at least have left some clue of their existence.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep coming back to this? :confused:

OUR civilization isn't even detectable out to the nearest star.
Why aren't WE out there yet then?
Who says that their technology is even remotely like ours?
Hell, who says their intelligence is even remotely like ours?

As Joe said, please address the numbered points if you are going to repeat the same question over and over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom