A discussion on life (Scientific, not philosophical)
-
'Change in allele frequency' is just a part of the definition of biological evolution, as it totally leaves out part that includes the selection process of RNA and DNA vs some other mechanism, as well as a whole bunch of other pre-genomic possibilities that didn't make it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That would be problematic - as you said, we don't have a good enough definition of life.
It is not a problem, you are side stepping the question.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It is, I admit, one of the less ridiculous things I've heard, but it's still not a description of evolution.
No, I never claimed it was a description of evolution, just a description of one of its results. See, the problem exists that the world went from no life to life, no matter what you think the driving force was. You believe it was the spontaneous (but not instantaneous) creation through evolution, as described above. You did not say so, but there is no way around it. Either life was spontaneously created or it was created by something. Seeded from similar existing life is just putting it back to having happened somewhere else. Christian believes that it was created by something.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Sceptics are the only ones willing to accept that they may be wrong.
Are you a skeptic? If so, admit you are wrong. Skeptics are just as egotistical and bone headed as people who aren't. You clearly were implying that Christian, and, by association, Christians, are not skeptics. Yet he does not accept your explanation, so he must be skeptical of it. So it would be just as easy for him to admit he was wrong as it would be for you. Flat Earthers are skeptical, and unwilling to admit they are wrong. I mean real FEs, not the people who do it for fun.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
'Change in allele frequency' is just a part of the definition of biological evolution
No, that IS the definition.
RichardM1 wrote:
it totally leaves out part that includes the selection process of RNA and DNA vs some other mechanism, as well as a whole bunch of other pre-genomic possibilities that didn't make it.
That's not biological evolution. It's more like biochemical evolution or something like this.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is not a problem, you are side stepping the question.
Life is a continuum, and ascribing a point of 'alive' is entirely arbitrary.
RichardM1 wrote:
no matter what you think the driving force was.
It was the sun.
RichardM1 wrote:
Christian believes that it was created by something.
Unjustifiably, I say.
RichardM1 wrote:
If so, admit you are wrong
I'm not wrong.
RichardM1 wrote:
Skeptics are just as egotistical and bone headed as people who aren't. You clearly were implying that Christian, and, by association, Christians, are not skeptics. Yet he does not accept your explanation, so he must be skeptical of it. So it would be just as easy for him to admit he was wrong as it would be for you. Flat Earthers are skeptical, and unwilling to admit they are wrong. I mean real FEs, not the people who do it for fun.
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
I would expect life to be everywhere.
Where are the radio comms of other life? Is it that the chance life only gets intelligent enough to have radio is so small that the conjunction of radio, life and planets has none at a distance and age for the radio waves to be arriving now? That has bothered me, because one of the solutions to the probability equation is that somebody kills them all, as soon as they hear them, so the time of radiating tends to be short. :)
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Where are the radio comms of other life? Is it that the chance life only gets intelligent enough to have radio is so small that the conjunction of radio, life and planets has none at a distance and age for the radio waves to be arriving now?
Intelligent life might be rare or at least to our kind of level. Could also be a distance/time thing.
Kevin
-
viaducting wrote:
If your experience tells you there is a God, and mine tells me there isn't, how can we determine who is right?
Death will instruct us, one way or the other.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Death will instruct us, one way or the other.
The Dalai Lama's first words: "As I was saying..."
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Like I said, people see the same data and come to different conclusions. You just said if he appeared in the sky, you wouldn't believe it. See != believing.
If you watched a magician saw somebody in half, would you believe that the person was really sawn in half?
RichardM1 wrote:
There is a (controversial) historical document that says it has happened before (the Bible), you choose not to believe it, and think it has never happened before.
The Bible is wildly inconsistent with reality, as well as internally inconsistent. Using it as evidence of god is like using a comic book as evidence for Superman.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is the problem with eye witness testimony, isn't it?
It's notoriously unreliable. I've heard people claim that their church prayed for amputees and saw their limbs miraculously grow back. They're either lying, or are delusional.
RichardM1 wrote:
God shows up in the sky, you decide it isn't real.
If Albert Einstein approached you in the street and started talking to you, would you believe it was real?
RichardM1 wrote:
What do you think set it up?
Nothing 'set it up'. It's just statistics, and there's really no other way it could have naturally arisen.
RichardM1 wrote:
Neither do any of the programs I have written require me, yet I created them.
Your programs don't claim that you divinely interfere with them.
RichardM1 wrote:
God does all these things to save the person, but the person does not accept it as the solution, because it is not the 'miraculous' type that they expect to see.
Except that god didn't do any of those things to save the person, and never does. It was people that did them.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Except that god didn't do any of those things to save the person, and never does. It was people that did them.
OK Ravel, this was about a joke. You are taking it too far, and so can I :) This shows your bias, you have decided you will not see it, you won't. You looked at a one line condensed joke and decided, with no backup, that it had to be your way. God did make it all happen, and he used people to do it. I'm sorry for your blindness, but that is what it is.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Nothing 'set it up'. It's just statistics, and there's really no other way it could have naturally arisen.
Sure, if you are so narrow minded that you think this is the only natural way. But there has been work done on other ways a universe could be set up, and they show that their naturally is different from ours. And calc and physics are not just statistics
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Your programs don't claim that you divinely interfere with them.
No, the selfish bastards aren't that polite. They mess up a calculation, and bitch because I have to cut them open and fix em. Little ungrateful pricks.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If Albert Einstein approached you in the street and started talking to you, would you believe it was real?
Yes, I would believe it was real. I would remain healthfully skeptical as to it being Al. While hallucinations happen, the history of them happening to me is low. If it were a spirit in the sky, I would believe it was real, but retain my skepticism as to what is was.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's notoriously unreliable. I've heard people claim that their church prayed for amputees and saw their limbs miraculously grow back. They're either lying, or are delusional.
And how many times have we had the same problems with data falsifying and untrue conclusions, in the sciences? People lying is people lying, and it is not confined to religion.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The Bible is wildly inconsistent with reality, as well as internally inconsistent. Using it as evidence of god is like using a comic book as evidence for Superman.
You will have to show me where it is as inconsistent as you say. I have read superficial inconsistency that does n
-
I believe ( :-\ ) that in the particular test you're talking about we are all test subjects.
The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
'Change in allele frequency' is just a part of the definition of biological evolution
No, that IS the definition.
RichardM1 wrote:
it totally leaves out part that includes the selection process of RNA and DNA vs some other mechanism, as well as a whole bunch of other pre-genomic possibilities that didn't make it.
That's not biological evolution. It's more like biochemical evolution or something like this.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is not a problem, you are side stepping the question.
Life is a continuum, and ascribing a point of 'alive' is entirely arbitrary.
RichardM1 wrote:
no matter what you think the driving force was.
It was the sun.
RichardM1 wrote:
Christian believes that it was created by something.
Unjustifiably, I say.
RichardM1 wrote:
If so, admit you are wrong
I'm not wrong.
RichardM1 wrote:
Skeptics are just as egotistical and bone headed as people who aren't. You clearly were implying that Christian, and, by association, Christians, are not skeptics. Yet he does not accept your explanation, so he must be skeptical of it. So it would be just as easy for him to admit he was wrong as it would be for you. Flat Earthers are skeptical, and unwilling to admit they are wrong. I mean real FEs, not the people who do it for fun.
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, that IS the definition.
There are so many types of evolution, and you were not at all specific, how could you expect me not to be skeptical of your claim? Your are going to have to show me a reference, since you only said evolution, not even biological evolution. I'll let you narrow it down to molecular evolution. :laugh:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
That IS NOT the definition. I like that. First you change the definition of evolution, now of skeptic.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm not wrong.
You do not seem too skeptical on your ability to understand complex subjects. While the self confidence is good, the hubris may end up being a problem for you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Life is a continuum, and ascribing a point of 'alive' is entirely arbitrary.
Again, side stepping. I explicitly did not define it as a point. What I described took, most likely, hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years. Yet before it was no life, and after life. Spontaneously created? You never did answer that.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Death will instruct us, one way or the other.
The Dalai Lama's first words: "As I was saying..."
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, that IS the definition.
There are so many types of evolution, and you were not at all specific, how could you expect me not to be skeptical of your claim? Your are going to have to show me a reference, since you only said evolution, not even biological evolution. I'll let you narrow it down to molecular evolution. :laugh:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
That IS NOT the definition. I like that. First you change the definition of evolution, now of skeptic.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm not wrong.
You do not seem too skeptical on your ability to understand complex subjects. While the self confidence is good, the hubris may end up being a problem for you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Life is a continuum, and ascribing a point of 'alive' is entirely arbitrary.
Again, side stepping. I explicitly did not define it as a point. What I described took, most likely, hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years. Yet before it was no life, and after life. Spontaneously created? You never did answer that.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
There are so many types of evolution, and you were not at all specific, how could you expect me not to be skeptical of your claim? Your are going to have to show me a reference, since you only said evolution, not even biological evolution. I'll let you narrow it down to molecular evolution.
Well, the word 'evolution' in this context is pretty much always implicitly understood to mean 'biological evolution', and I'm actually a little surprised that you'd think I was encompassing every conceivable definition of evolution in my statement; if we were talking about running, would you assume I meant all 78 definitions at once? And I can't show you any references, at least not for the rest of the month - my brothers used up all of our downloads and now my Internet connection is horrendous (it just took 1 minute 40 seconds to load the Google homepage X| ).
RichardM1 wrote:
That IS NOT the definition. I like that. First you change the definition of evolution, now of skeptic.
Funny, that's how my dictionary (Encarta World English Dictionary) defines it.
RichardM1 wrote:
You do not seem too skeptical on your ability to understand complex subjects. While the self confidence is good, the hubris may end up being a problem for you.
Why is my assertion that I'm not wrong any more arrogant than your assertion that I am wrong?
RichardM1 wrote:
Again, side stepping. I explicitly did not define it as a point. What I described took, most likely, hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years. Yet before it was no life, and after life. Spontaneously created? You never did answer that.
Well, OK, I concede - given two sufficiently distant points in time, one could say that life began between them. So?
-
RichardM1 wrote:
There are so many types of evolution, and you were not at all specific, how could you expect me not to be skeptical of your claim? Your are going to have to show me a reference, since you only said evolution, not even biological evolution. I'll let you narrow it down to molecular evolution.
Well, the word 'evolution' in this context is pretty much always implicitly understood to mean 'biological evolution', and I'm actually a little surprised that you'd think I was encompassing every conceivable definition of evolution in my statement; if we were talking about running, would you assume I meant all 78 definitions at once? And I can't show you any references, at least not for the rest of the month - my brothers used up all of our downloads and now my Internet connection is horrendous (it just took 1 minute 40 seconds to load the Google homepage X| ).
RichardM1 wrote:
That IS NOT the definition. I like that. First you change the definition of evolution, now of skeptic.
Funny, that's how my dictionary (Encarta World English Dictionary) defines it.
RichardM1 wrote:
You do not seem too skeptical on your ability to understand complex subjects. While the self confidence is good, the hubris may end up being a problem for you.
Why is my assertion that I'm not wrong any more arrogant than your assertion that I am wrong?
RichardM1 wrote:
Again, side stepping. I explicitly did not define it as a point. What I described took, most likely, hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years. Yet before it was no life, and after life. Spontaneously created? You never did answer that.
Well, OK, I concede - given two sufficiently distant points in time, one could say that life began between them. So?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, the word 'evolution' in this context is pretty much always implicitly understood to mean 'biological evolution', and I'm actually a little surprised that you'd think I was encompassing every conceivable definition of evolution in my statement
Yes, it is pretty obvious. That is why I did not understand why you used a definition of molecular biology to be the definition of biological evolution. Molecular biology, as you defined it, is a subset of biological evolution.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
RichardM1 wrote:
That IS NOT the definition.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Funny, that's how my dictionary (Encarta World English Dictionary) defines it.
Well, I an not going to update your version of Encarta for you, but I suggest you do.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Christian Graus wrote:
Just because I don't believe in spontaneous existence of life
Which isn't evolution . . .
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, OK, I concede - given two sufficiently distant points in time, one could say that life began between them. So?
I notice you hedge your words, and still will not agreed that it came about spontaneously. Do you not think that life started somewhere between the coagulation of the Earth, and now?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why is my assertion that I'm not wrong any more arrogant than your assertion that I am wrong?
Because, you are in fact, wrong. Are you still sure you are one of those skeptics that can admit they are wrong? ;) There is one hard constraint the must be met before you can have biological evolution. Life. Now, we have only two posited ways for life to occur: spontaneously, or by something creating it. You statemented:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Christian Graus wrote:
the two ideas are generally presented toget
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, the word 'evolution' in this context is pretty much always implicitly understood to mean 'biological evolution', and I'm actually a little surprised that you'd think I was encompassing every conceivable definition of evolution in my statement
Yes, it is pretty obvious. That is why I did not understand why you used a definition of molecular biology to be the definition of biological evolution. Molecular biology, as you defined it, is a subset of biological evolution.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm using the definition of 'sceptic' that relates specifically to unwillingness to simply accept religious teachings, not simply someone who stubbornly refuses to consider overwhelming contrary evidence.
RichardM1 wrote:
That IS NOT the definition.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Funny, that's how my dictionary (Encarta World English Dictionary) defines it.
Well, I an not going to update your version of Encarta for you, but I suggest you do.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Christian Graus wrote:
Just because I don't believe in spontaneous existence of life
Which isn't evolution . . .
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, OK, I concede - given two sufficiently distant points in time, one could say that life began between them. So?
I notice you hedge your words, and still will not agreed that it came about spontaneously. Do you not think that life started somewhere between the coagulation of the Earth, and now?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why is my assertion that I'm not wrong any more arrogant than your assertion that I am wrong?
Because, you are in fact, wrong. Are you still sure you are one of those skeptics that can admit they are wrong? ;) There is one hard constraint the must be met before you can have biological evolution. Life. Now, we have only two posited ways for life to occur: spontaneously, or by something creating it. You statemented:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Christian Graus wrote:
the two ideas are generally presented toget
RichardM1 wrote:
That is why I did not understand why you used a definition of molecular biology to be the definition of biological evolution. Molecular biology, as you defined it, is a subset of biological evolution.
I used the definition of evolution as used in biology, or at least a formulation of it. Your attempts to confound me with semantics are annoying.
RichardM1 wrote:
I notice you hedge your words, and still will not agreed that it came about spontaneously. Do you not think that life started somewhere between the coagulation of the Earth, and now?
Yes, you could say that life began spontaneously probably sometime during the lifetime of Earth. So what?
RichardM1 wrote:
Because, you are in fact, wrong.
About what?
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you have another way to present it?
How life began is abiogenesis. How life changes is evolution. It's a common Creationist technique to criticise evolution by criticising abiogenesis.
-
I don't expect it will be found, simply because I believe God created life. I don't care about the mechanism He used ( that is to say, I'm not claiming anything on that front especially ), I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Even if life is found somewhere else, why should that have any impact on religion? What difference does that make? The very definition of God implies that he created everything, including life elsewhere, if that's what he felt like doing. :rolleyes: Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Nazi's
We could talk about your Hitleresque misuse of the possessive case.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Dalek Dave wrote: Nazi's We could talk about your Hitleresque misuse of the possessive case.
Actually, in the case of Nazi, the plural may also use an apstrophe, since this is an abbreviation of the full "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei Mitglied" (National Socialist German Worker Party Member). Hitler (or even DD), in this case, might have been right to use this apostrophe. :-D
-
I don't expect it will be found, simply because I believe God created life. I don't care about the mechanism He used ( that is to say, I'm not claiming anything on that front especially ), I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I didn't read all the posts, but no mention of FSM? On a more serious note, the discovery of life elsewhere, in our lifetime, seems as if it has two problems, both constrained by time. First, the obvious: for us to get anywhere and find it in a lifetime means it must be close. Seems as if Europa's our best chance for that, but I suspect it's too cold for the right chemical processes to happen. Second is finding evidence of life outside the solar system. This presumably implies intelligence, as we'd discover evidence of communication. The problem there is, the time in which humans have the ability to detect a message has to intersect with the time in which aliens have the ability to transmit a message. (Offset, of course, by the amount of time it takes said message to travel from one to the other). Presuming cultures evolve at different rates up to those two points, it seems to be a vanishingly small probability of the intersection of those events being non-zero. But, then again, I'm neither an astronomer, nor a physicist, nor a biologist, so I could be all the way off.
modified on Monday, May 24, 2010 10:24 AM
-
During my current module (I am doing an Open University course on life sciences) I am learning about the beginnings of life. It is a contentious issue. Some think it was foam, others mud, some think it was an iron first development and so on... However, given all research and evidence, it becomes apparent that the golden rule is if there is liquid water, there is life. Posit. If life, or evidence of past life, is found on one other body in the solar system, be it Mars, Europa or wherever, it is a sign that life is universal. Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
I think the entire premise is flawed, science only accepts life to be that which is similar to what it already knows or has experienced. What if, there is life that we can't see because it's body doesn't react to light the way we expect it to? Life is definitely universal, how ever man-kind's understanding of it (life) is limited by it's inability to accept anything that exists outside of the accepted paradigms revolving any given subject. In this particular case, Life.
-
During my current module (I am doing an Open University course on life sciences) I am learning about the beginnings of life. It is a contentious issue. Some think it was foam, others mud, some think it was an iron first development and so on... However, given all research and evidence, it becomes apparent that the golden rule is if there is liquid water, there is life. Posit. If life, or evidence of past life, is found on one other body in the solar system, be it Mars, Europa or wherever, it is a sign that life is universal. Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
First define life scientifically without specific reference to terrestrial behavior of any life-form, while still encompassing all life you consider life found on Earth. Now scientifically determine a method of detection that encompasses a decent chance of finding said life. Even assuming all wars end tomorrow and a vast majority of countries dedicate a percentage of gross nation product to finding said life with absolutely no redunancy or cut-throat practices... I doubt our chances are even as good as winning the big prize of the powerball using a single ticket and never entering again. mathematically the universe is huge so large that mathematically the chance of there being significantly more than one planet of life exceeds the mathematical chance of there being only one planet of life. However the same math works against us. Will we recognize the life? Will we find it somehow and assuming by chance as low as it is we stumble by accident how good are the chances we will destroy that evidence to protect or hurt a country, theory, or religion?
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
RichardM1 wrote:
That is why I did not understand why you used a definition of molecular biology to be the definition of biological evolution. Molecular biology, as you defined it, is a subset of biological evolution.
I used the definition of evolution as used in biology, or at least a formulation of it. Your attempts to confound me with semantics are annoying.
RichardM1 wrote:
I notice you hedge your words, and still will not agreed that it came about spontaneously. Do you not think that life started somewhere between the coagulation of the Earth, and now?
Yes, you could say that life began spontaneously probably sometime during the lifetime of Earth. So what?
RichardM1 wrote:
Because, you are in fact, wrong.
About what?
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you have another way to present it?
How life began is abiogenesis. How life changes is evolution. It's a common Creationist technique to criticise evolution by criticising abiogenesis.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I used the definition of evolution as used in biology, or at least a formulation of it. Your attempts to confound me with semantics are annoying.
I am holding you to what you say. I have no other way to understand your argument. Semantics are what matter in an argument. Precision in language is no less required in argument than the ability to throw in baseball or kick in football. Failure to use precision and you will fail.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How life began is abiogenesis. How life changes is evolution. It's a common Creationist technique to criticise evolution by criticising abiogenesis.
You are wrong in your earlier strong implication that the two presented together is only done by creationists.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
During my current module (I am doing an Open University course on life sciences) I am learning about the beginnings of life. It is a contentious issue. Some think it was foam, others mud, some think it was an iron first development and so on... However, given all research and evidence, it becomes apparent that the golden rule is if there is liquid water, there is life. Posit. If life, or evidence of past life, is found on one other body in the solar system, be it Mars, Europa or wherever, it is a sign that life is universal. Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Yes, I believe that life will be discovered in your lifetime. I believe that we will find simple life and, with any luck and a great deal of perseverance, that we will find advanced life. The discovery of simple life will not cause much of a stir. Certainly it will be big news, and there is no doubt that some will attempt to use that discovery of simple life to slam philosophical positions. Those efforts to persecute beliefs with simple evidence will not gain much traction, I think. On the other hand, the discovery of advanced life might very well lead to a type of deadening of our collective psyche. We may find that we ARE stupid in comparison to a much more ancient species. We may find that we are NEVER going to be the space cowboy heroes that we see in the movies. We will never, ever, be able to play CTF as well as those who began playing 10K years ago. We may not even qualify as spectators at the big game. We may simply not be the best design that there is. We may be uncompetitive in the larger scheme of things. It may derail us as a species. It may cause us to become defeatist in the broadest sense. It may be the magic bullet that puts us out of our collective egotistical misery. Finally. Advanced life will be the greatest discovery ever, yes. Exterminate!!
-
During my current module (I am doing an Open University course on life sciences) I am learning about the beginnings of life. It is a contentious issue. Some think it was foam, others mud, some think it was an iron first development and so on... However, given all research and evidence, it becomes apparent that the golden rule is if there is liquid water, there is life. Posit. If life, or evidence of past life, is found on one other body in the solar system, be it Mars, Europa or wherever, it is a sign that life is universal. Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Religious view If God created life here then he can do it wherever he pleases. Whether we discover it or not is up to him. Scientific view How many times have scientists proved themselves wrong? The big danger in science is that too many believe they are smarter than they actually are. Too often opinions are passed off as facts and things that aren’t understood are dismissed as not possible. If science was a simple true or false world then we wouldn’t have so many scientists disagreeing with each other. I subscribe to the religious view.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives
Probably - but at microbial level.
Dalek Dave wrote:
The Greatest Discovery Ever?
No. The discovery of alcohol - that's my vote for it.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
No. The discovery of alcohol - that's my vote for it.
My vote for it too. And a quote: "To alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems" - Homer Simpson
-
harold aptroot wrote:
That's a bit problematic, it might take billions of years..
Well, that's kind of the issue. I don't see any way they can prove it, any time soon. In the meantime, it's all good science, I mean, it's good that we look at these things. I just doubt they will actually prove there is no God, they will simply do experiments that prove some basic things can happen in a controlled environment, and some people will assume it's curtains for God.
harold aptroot wrote:
Ok, well I'm not saying "he would have done things my way", but I'm asking "why only the Earth?"
What I meant by that is, 'it seems logical to me that if God existed, He would have xxx', where xxx could be, made life on other planets, not made spiders, or made all girls look like Jessica Alba. I'm accustomed to people telling me there can't be a God, because He didn't do something that seems to them like a good idea. I don't know why. I just know I'm not calling the shots.
harold aptroot wrote:
and then walk off, only to never do it again?
Because He did it the once, He didn't walk off, He's now interacting with the life He created.
harold aptroot wrote:
it's just doesn't make any sense..
Yes, that's my point. What God does, doesn't have to make sense to us, any more than it makes sense to my kids when I say they can't have ice cream before dinner and should not play on the road.
harold aptroot wrote:
Suppose god exists, why would that imply that he did anything at all?
It doesn't have to imply that, no.
harold aptroot wrote:
Couldn't he just be sitting there, taunting scientists with his elusiveness bordering on non-existence, without interfering in any way?
That is a possible case, yes.
harold aptroot wrote:
What is not meaningful about it?
I wish I could quote Scott Adams. Because it just raises more questions. Simplest according to who ? Since when is the simplest explanation the right one ? The simplest explanation IS that God created everything, and the sky is flat, with some holes that let God's light through. Science is great BECAUSE it takes us from simple minded explanations, to co
Christian Graus wrote:
harold aptroot wrote: Ok, well I'm not saying "he would have done things my way", but I'm asking "why only the Earth?" What I meant by that is, 'it seems logical to me that if God existed, He would have xxx', where xxx could be, made life on other planets, not made spiders, or made all girls look like Jessica Alba. I'm accustomed to people telling me there can't be a God, because He didn't do something that seems to them like a good idea. I don't know why. I just know I'm not calling the shots.
Did I miss the part where the mankind figured out that the whole universe is lifeless but Earth? Also, there is a saying on the bible I beleive so much (in my words, don't remember the exact words): It's easier to fit earth's oceans on a tiny hole, than figure out God's misteries.