Thinking

London, UK

#430 Jun 21, 2013
Frank Drake's equation is a way of thinking how likely or unlikely life on other planets is. You multiply 7 numbers together. Some we know roughly, some are wild guesses. One estimate that is increasing is the fraction of stars that have planets due to recent observations by "planet hunters".

This equation was coined over 50 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#T...

Panspermia is the hypothesis that life can be transmitted through space. An example could be a very hardy bacteria in a meteorite. I saw a BBC Horizon programme where bacteria survived a simulated earth impact from space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm actually not familiar with Drake's equation, but I would love to look it up and do some research. Are you able to loosely tell me about it? I'm also not familiar with Panspermia.
Thinking

London, UK

#431 Jun 21, 2013
Thank you for this.

ne (the number of planets per star ecologically able to sustain life) concerns me. I think it could be really low.

For instance, would you say Titan and Europa are "good enough" to qualify? Or perhaps Mars could have qualified in the past? Or are none of these viable?
Richardfs wrote:
Thinking

London, UK

#432 Jun 21, 2013
If you play with the seven numbers before hitting "Calculate" you get large variations.
Could be 2, could be 2 million.
It's more of a thought experiment than anything.
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
Well now that's freakin cool :) I don't know if I was supposed to change anything on the bottom when I did the equation myself, but it came to 2000...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#433 Jun 21, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
This is just simply a question, but why would someone need evidence to prove that a god is "possible" It is possible for a creator to exist, we simply don't have proof that it does. Neither do we have evidence that to prove that it doesn't. Science has yet to unlock the secrets that the universe's hold...and we will long be gone before they do.
I agree with your post in principle.

In practical terms? It is usually quite easy to prove any given "god" cannot exist as described--the descriptions are in conflict.

And you cannot have a square-circle.

Finally? A creator implies creation--which implies design.

None of that applies to our universe, it's clearly undesigned, and uncaused too (it seems).

So there's no need for a creator for the present universe.

Everything that's in it, comes from the natural laws, that were established in the first few picoseconds of the present universe's current state.

It all boils down to non-uniformity in the original quantum singularity-- or so S. Hawkins says. He ought to know-- he's given it enough thought over the years.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#434 Jun 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
There may be some form of god out there but it is impossible for an all powerful compassionate god to exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
That's why I wouldn't worship a god.
<quoted text>
I agree-- if there be a god? It doesn't care one whit about the fates of collective humanity.

Such a god is unworthy of worship.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#435 Jun 21, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
This is also why I don't worship a god. I think that it is possible for a creator to be out there somewhere, but I doubt it. Now life somewhere out there aside from just ours here on earth I don't doubt at all. I just can't believe in a religious god.
I've yet to see a religious god that wasn't pretty easy to discredit-- and therefore prove to be myth.

Take the Genuine Christians™ god (for one example). Using their bible (which is the sole justification for this god to exist), it's pretty easy to test this god's credibility. Plenty of examples in that book, on exactly how to go about it, too.

One simple test? Would be to examine the bible's promises to Genuine Christians™, and then compare the lives of Genuine Christians™ to non-christians, and look for statistically significant differences.

Once obvious one? Ought to be the suffering of the innocent-- it should be markedly less for Genuine Christians™, than for anyone else. After all? What's less selfish, than to ask for divine intervention for a newborn infant's health/life?

And this avoids all the common excuses that "you can't ask for selfish stuff" and all that--

-- so. Are newborns of Genuine Christians™ more healthy, on average, than anyone else?

No. Controlling for economic status and financial capability? No difference at all: newborns get sick and die at the same rate for everybody, barring the above.

Proving beyond a doubt, that the Genuine Christian™ god is myth.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#436 Jun 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Did you ever mess about with Drake's Equation? I also think life "elsewhere" is very likely.
I got into a discussion with someone about Panspermia once, which I didn't think was very useful because it just pushes back the beginning of life to another location.

On further contemplation though, it made me think that life "elsewhere" is even more likely because we may have a mechanism where life on a planet isn't obliged to have originated there.
<quoted text>
I've seen and read quite a bit of discussion on this one.

The original experiments back in the 60's about the likely establishment of the complex precursors to life were pretty definitive: very likely.

In short? It seems that given the right mix of chemicals, and a reasonable range of temperatures, then life appears to be inevitable, not unlikely as some would have it.

In short, organic chemistry follows the rules of chemistry pretty much automatically, just as planets all tend to orbit in the same direction, due to how debris accumulate around a star.

So I'd wager that life is quite common throughout the universe--especially considering how many trillions of galaxies there are.

Of course, the universe is huge-- and it could be, that the window of sentient life's "broadcasting" years is more narrow that we thought. As such, the odds of catching such a broadcast appears to be slim.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#437 Jun 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Thank you for this.
ne (the number of planets per star ecologically able to sustain life) concerns me. I think it could be really low.
For instance, would you say Titan and Europa are "good enough" to qualify? Or perhaps Mars could have qualified in the past? Or are none of these viable?
<quoted text>
But the number of stars is so high, that it doesn't matter.

Have you seen the bit, where they trained the space-born telescope onto a "dark" section of the sky, and let the light from that spot gather for days? They found in the "dark" places of the sky-- literally millions of galaxies, so far distant that it takes the Hubble days to get sufficient photons to register a picture ...

... so the night sky isn't really dark at all-- there's galaxies full of stars in every "square inch" of it-- so distant we cannot see their light with our own limited eyes.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#438 Jun 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Thank you for this.
ne (the number of planets per star ecologically able to sustain life) concerns me. I think it could be really low.
For instance, would you say Titan and Europa are "good enough" to qualify? Or perhaps Mars could have qualified in the past? Or are none of these viable?
<quoted text>
A couple of points:-
1. The result is never zero
2. It only talks about current civilizations.
3. It only talks about our galaxy so whatever number you calculate multiply by about 100,000,000,000
Thinking

London, UK

#439 Jun 21, 2013
Did you read any of Iain M. Banks science fiction? He talks about an amazing society called "The Culture". His premise is that advanced races leave their bodies behind (he says they "sublime"). The Culture has decided to stay around in the physical universe and act as an overqualified police force. It's very well written.

The poster ChristineM is a great fan of Iain's "Excession". Me too.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen and read quite a bit of discussion on this one.
The original experiments back in the 60's about the likely establishment of the complex precursors to life were pretty definitive: very likely.
In short? It seems that given the right mix of chemicals, and a reasonable range of temperatures, then life appears to be inevitable, not unlikely as some would have it.
In short, organic chemistry follows the rules of chemistry pretty much automatically, just as planets all tend to orbit in the same direction, due to how debris accumulate around a star.
So I'd wager that life is quite common throughout the universe--especially considering how many trillions of galaxies there are.
Of course, the universe is huge-- and it could be, that the window of sentient life's "broadcasting" years is more narrow that we thought. As such, the odds of catching such a broadcast appears to be slim.
Thinking

London, UK

#440 Jun 21, 2013
I'd be very surprised if life didn't exist elsewhere.

Maybe I need to get hold of Frank Drake and ask him if we need an eighth factor: the percentage of time that a viable planet is habitable.

Today, Mars is a no no, but it looks like it was viable in the past.

Most likely Frank has got better things to do.
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
A couple of points:-
1. The result is never zero
2. It only talks about current civilizations.
3. It only talks about our galaxy so whatever number you calculate multiply by about 100,000,000,000

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#441 Jun 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your post in principle.
In practical terms? It is usually quite easy to prove any given "god" cannot exist as described--the descriptions are in conflict.
And you cannot have a square-circle.
Finally? A creator implies creation--which implies design.
None of that applies to our universe, it's clearly undesigned, and uncaused too (it seems).
So there's no need for a creator for the present universe.
Everything that's in it, comes from the natural laws, that were established in the first few picoseconds of the present universe's current state.
It all boils down to non-uniformity in the original quantum singularity-- or so S. Hawkins says. He ought to know-- he's given it enough thought over the years.
:)
My boyfriend and I tend to have a disagreement every time we have this discussion lol. You are correct, and I don't doubt science by any means...I just always say that if someone wants to think that there may have been a creator that is fine with me, but to think that a god is still involved in our flimsy every day lives is where I would say that the christian people have no advantage over us in their lives...they are not "blessed" or "cursed" any more than the rest of us, which should make it obvious to them that their "merciful" "loveing" god does not do his job. I've always said that to each their own, until it starts to infringe on someone else and how they conduct their life...and that is where my dislike for christianity comes into play.

I do agree with you though that science tells us that the universe has no creator. I just can't lie and say that it doesn't comfort me to think that there may be something out there that could have had a hand in it :) My boyfriend hates hates hates that!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#442 Jun 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Did you read any of Iain M. Banks science fiction? He talks about an amazing society called "The Culture". His premise is that advanced races leave their bodies behind (he says they "sublime"). The Culture has decided to stay around in the physical universe and act as an overqualified police force. It's very well written.
The poster ChristineM is a great fan of Iain's "Excession". Me too.
<quoted text>
No, I haven't-- I'll give it a look-see. Sounds interesting.

Thanks.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#443 Jun 21, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I'd be very surprised if life didn't exist elsewhere.
Maybe I need to get hold of Frank Drake and ask him if we need an eighth factor: the percentage of time that a viable planet is habitable.
Today, Mars is a no no, but it looks like it was viable in the past.
Most likely Frank has got better things to do.
<quoted text>
Yes, there is that, too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#444 Jun 21, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
My boyfriend and I tend to have a disagreement every time we have this discussion lol. You are correct, and I don't doubt science by any means...I just always say that if someone wants to think that there may have been a creator that is fine with me, but to think that a god is still involved in our flimsy every day lives is where I would say that the christian people have no advantage over us in their lives...they are not "blessed" or "cursed" any more than the rest of us, which should make it obvious to them that their "merciful" "loveing" god does not do his job. I've always said that to each their own, until it starts to infringe on someone else and how they conduct their life...and that is where my dislike for christianity comes into play.

I do agree with you though that science tells us that the universe has no creator. I just can't lie and say that it doesn't comfort me to think that there may be something out there that could have had a hand in it :) My boyfriend hates hates hates that!
:)

We all have our comforting illusions. The key (as you have apparently seen) is to not let those illusions ruin your view of actual reality itself.

Reality can be... unpleasant sometimes, if you stop paying attention.

<heh>

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#445 Jun 21, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
<hehehehe> "divine golden code".... too funny!
As if a chaotic system that is semi-conductor electronics could ever be perfect... it literally operates off of chaos/random fluctuation and quantum states. Love it!
<quoted text>
:) We'll never get a perfect OS. But.
With sufficient processing power? Who would notice? The errors--as they inevitably crop up, will be self-correcting, without need for operator intervention in any visible way.
We are already moving in this direction, and have been for awhile.
<quoted text>
:)
In their simple-minded universe, things are either "on" or "off". There is no in-between, quantum-states of anything to a god-botherer.
And they **like** it that way, too: no exercise of their lazy minds here. Goddidit. Simple. Mindless. Easy.
<laughing>
The universe, unfortunately for **them** is anything but-- it's chaotic, messy, comprised of massive loads of uncertainty too.
The exact **opposite** of what they so deeply fantasize of.
To continue the analogy, the divine code may have been achievable when IBM was king 40 some years ago. Now that the computer industry has fractured into many vying interests, I'd say chaos theory might start to apply. And with the shrinking hardware having to take into account quantum physics, even more so.

As for the godbots, The Authoritarians was an eye opener for me. At the risk of sounding spamming, it was a Revelation, so to speak.

The really interesting and scary finding there was the spotting of Social Dominators. And once you see the definition, you spot them and their tactics quite easily.

And a lot of what you see going on in religion and politics (that's reflected on internet boards by the followers) starts to make sense. Still crazy, but now you can see the mechanism behind the crazy.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#446 Jun 22, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
To continue the analogy, the divine code may have been achievable when IBM was king 40 some years ago. Now that the computer industry has fractured into many vying interests, I'd say chaos theory might start to apply. And with the shrinking hardware having to take into account quantum physics, even more so.
As for the godbots, The Authoritarians was an eye opener for me. At the risk of sounding spamming, it was a Revelation, so to speak.
The really interesting and scary finding there was the spotting of Social Dominators. And once you see the definition, you spot them and their tactics quite easily.
And a lot of what you see going on in religion and politics (that's reflected on internet boards by the followers) starts to make sense. Still crazy, but now you can see the mechanism behind the crazy.
Yes, there are always minions/followers I suppose.

And religion like any other social experiment, seems geared to give power and control to a select few, over the masses.

Since: Dec 08

Oldsmar, FL

#447 Jun 26, 2013
Fossil Gaps 3

Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Oldsmar, FL

#448 Jun 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
It is usually quite easy to prove any given "god" cannot exist as described--the descriptions are in conflict.
A creator implies creation--which implies design.
None of that applies to our universe, it's clearly undesigned, and uncaused too (it seems).
Science Proves God
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.”[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read,“Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.
http://bookstore.iuniverse.com/Products/SKU-0...

Since: Dec 08

Oldsmar, FL

#449 Jun 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree-- if there be a god? It doesn't care one whit about the fates of collective humanity.
Such a god is unworthy of worship.
GOD WHY SUFFERING
2

The question implies that if a good God exists, then evil shouldn't because God being all powerful should stop it.

We need to ask and answer two questions. First, what is evil? It is that which is against God. It is anything morally bad or wrong. It is injurious, depraved, wicked. Some acceptable examples might be murder, rape, stealing, lying, and cheating. Second, if we want God to stop evil do we want Him to stop all evil or just some of it? In other words, if just some of it then why? If He were to stop only part of the evil, then we would still be asking the question, "Why is there evil in the world?"

Let's suppose that someone was about to commit murder. God would have to stop him, maybe whisper in his ear, or if that didn't work do something a little more drastic like have something fall on him, or stop his heart, or make his hands suddenly fall off. Anyway, God would have to do something.

What if somebody wanted to steal? God would have to stop him too, right? Undoubtedly, God's imagination would permit a more practical method than I have suggested, but the end results would be the same.

What about lying? If someone were to tell a lie, then to be consistent wouldn't you want God right there to stop that person from lying? After all, He couldn't let any evil occur could He?

Let's take it a step further. Suppose someone thought something evil. Then, of course, God would have to step in and prevent him from thinking anything bad at all, right? The end result would be that God could not allow anyone to think freely. Since everyone thinks and no one thinks only pure thoughts, God would be pretty busy and we wouldn't be able to think. Anyway, at what point do we stop, at the murder level, stealing level, lying level, or thinking level? As your questions implies, if you want God to stop evil, you would have to be consistent and want Him to do it everywhere all the time, not just pick and choose. It wouldn't work.

Evil is in this world partly because we give it its place but ultimately because God, in His sovereignty, permits it and keeps it under His control.

Then you might say, "Couldn't He just make us perfect and that way we wouldn't sin?" He already did that. He made a perfect angel, Satan, but he sinned. He made a perfect man, Adam, and he sinned. He made a perfect woman, Eve, and she sinned. God knows what He is doing. He made us the way we are for a purpose. We don't fully understand that purpose, but He does.

God is sovereign; He has the right to do as He wishes. He has the right to permit evil for accomplishing His ultimate will. How can He do that? Simple, look at the cross. It was by evil means that men lied and crucified Jesus. Yet God in His infinite wisdom used this evil for good. It was on the cross that Jesus bore our sins in His body (1 Peter. 2:24) and it is because of the cross that we can have forgiveness of sins.

Consider the biblical example of Joseph in the Old Testament. He was sold into slavery by his brothers. Though they meant it for evil, God meant it for good (Gen. 50:20). God is so great that nothing happens without His permission, and in that permission His ultimate plan unfolds. In His plan He is able to use for good what man intends for evil. God is in control.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 2 hr thetruth 101
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr thetruth 239,051
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr thetruth 7,272
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 2 hr thetruth 7,448
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... Thu thetruth 29
News .com | What hope is there without God? May 20 Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
More from around the web