Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Washington Times

DENTON, Texas, June 19, 2012 - Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

Comments
5,321 - 5,340 of 6,103 Comments Last updated May 20, 2013

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5394
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
Assuming is a disingenuous term to use for predictability. It in itself is a question not a statement.

We already know the odds that life will develop on a planet in a galaxy is 100%.
That's untrue; we don't know if life will develop on any planet other than Earth. We have no knowledge if life will develop in any galaxy other than the Milky Way.

We would have to know of life in another galaxy to claim, "the odds that life will develop on a planet in a galaxy is 100%."

.
Aura Mytha wrote:
The odds even only 1 planet will develop life in a galaxy of 400 billion stars with possibly 1600-3600 billion planets per galaxy.
Or three trillion six hundred thousand billion.
There are an estimated 125 billion galaxies.
Now
3,600,000,000,000 x 125,000,000,000 = possible places life could have arisen.
or about 9^35th
900,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000.
That's a few chances life could be out there wouldn't you say?
That's just compounding error after error.

Belief in extraterrestrial life is based entirely on faith without any scientific evidence.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5395
Jan 11, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's untrue; we don't know if life will develop on any planet other than Earth. We have no knowledge if life will develop in any galaxy other than the Milky Way.
We would have to know of life in another galaxy to claim, "the odds that life will develop on a planet in a galaxy is 100%."
Reading comprehension! He was 100% correct as there is life on THIS planet in this galaxy.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's just compounding error after error.
Belief in extraterrestrial life is based entirely on faith without any scientific evidence.
No. It's based on evidence and probability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5396
Jan 11, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's untrue; we don't know if life will develop on any planet other than Earth. We have no knowledge if life will develop in any galaxy other than the Milky Way.
We would have to know of life in another galaxy to claim, "the odds that life will develop on a planet in a galaxy is 100%."
.
<quoted text>That's just compounding error after error.
Belief in extraterrestrial life is based entirely on faith without any scientific evidence.

Look it is not a belief or desire , it is a question and prediction by odds. If you do not understand that, you may as well give up.
We have an example , it is 100% odds that life formed on a planet in a galaxy.

We have no reason to think other galaxies would be any different.
You think because we don't have an example other than our own
there can be no prediction, but the only example IS the prediction.
We also know the elements that make life are abundant in the universe. We know water is abundant in the universe. We also know that life formed on Earth in a hostile molten environment, and survived a frozen Earth. Was destroyed 5 times and returned to repopulate the Earth.

The odds are really even higher than you think that life could have formed more than once in this galaxy. Given the criteria
habitable zone and elements as well as its ability to recover from extinction. But this is not faith or belief is is a guess based on the evidence and criteria.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5397
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree, we know how many species of Brazilian beetles were discovered last year so we have knowledge of Brazilian beetles that were unknown as of 2011, and if we know how many species were discovered in 2011 then we have knowledge of unknown Brazilian beetles as of 2010. This body of knowledge extends back for hundreds of years.
.
<quoted text>But no knowledge of life beyond Earth.
But, over the last 100 years or so, we've discovered countless life forms which exist in extreme conditions pushing the boundaries of where life could exist from our narrow perception of surface life, to just about anywhere where there is an energy source.

Additionally, we've also discovered amino acids in comets and methane in the atmospheres of various planets.

Meaning both the building blocks and the by products of life are present elsewhere in the Universe.

If we had discovered the carbon only exists on Earth and nowhere else in the Universe, then I would agree with you.

However, the evidence shows that the resources are readily available everywhere. That the results of life are detectable elsewhere (methane does not stay around long, it needs to be constantly produced to be detectable).

Thus, like your beetle example, we can use the existing information to extrapolate the probability of future data.
Plants use light radiation for photosynthesis.
True, but not the point. I'm talking about deep Earth microbes using radioactive decay from materials in the Earth's crust.
That assumption is based on faith; not experience, not science. You can't pin down the probability so it's pseudoscience.
You can't pin down the probability of discovering a beetle in Brazil. You can GUESS, like you did above, but there are variables you don't control.

For example: It's possible that there are ZERO remaining beetles to be discovered.

It's also possible that Brazil will engage in a campaign of murdering all scientists within their borders.

Both of those things would result in zero new discoveries.

Thus, your probability is based on your own unfounded predictions about variables you can not know and can not control.
No, we know how many species are discovered each year so statistically we can determine how many unknown species exist based on past experience.
No, we can GUESS. For all you know, we've discovered EVERY single species and there will be no new species.

You are extrapolating based on assumptions.

That's what extrapolating is. You look at the variables you can answer, you guess at the variables you can't. You make an educated guess.

Given the variables (total space of the Universe and number of locations which could potentially host life), we can make an educated guess about the number of attempts life has of gaining a foothold somewhere.

Therefore, given the VASTNESS of that field of probability, it is likely that life exists elsewhere.

However,_IF_ you have _evidence_ that life on Earth is the result of a Jewish Wizard doing something special 6,000 years ago - THEN we can alter our prediction to take into account that ridiculous fable.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5398
Jan 11, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's untrue; we don't know if life will develop on any planet other than Earth. We have no knowledge if life will develop in any galaxy other than the Milky Way.
We would have to know of life in another galaxy to claim, "the odds that life will develop on a planet in a galaxy is 100%."
.
<quoted text>That's just compounding error after error.
Belief in extraterrestrial life is based entirely on faith without any scientific evidence.
Depends on how you play the numbers (isn't statistics fun).

Based on the observable fact that out of the sample of planets we know of where life as we know it could possibly exist (1), the actual incidence of life occurring is 1. This would statistically indicate that our of a sample of 1 we have 1 positive occurrence and therefore a 100% probability.

Admittedly working with a sample size of 1 violate all aspects of even basic probability, but it is the way the math works.

Probability really isn't applicable unless and until we get a larger sample size and a way to actually measure positive occurrences within the sample.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5399
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Assuming is a disingenuous term to use for predictability.
It in itself is a question not a statement. We already know the odds that life will develop on a planet in a galaxy is 100%.
The odds even only 1 planet will develop life in a galaxy of 400 billion stars with possibly 1600-3600 billion planets per galaxy.
Or three trillion six hundred thousand billion.
There are an estimated 125 billion galaxies.
Now
3,600,000,000,000 x 125,000,000,000 = possible places life could have arisen.
or about 9^35th
900,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000.
That's a few chances life could be out there wouldn't you say?
I see you guys still have a problem with "determining" odds.

Why am I not surprised.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5400
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

In addition to the discovery live exist where no light from the sun ever penetrates by thermal radiation, we have also discovered life exists by producing a chemical thermal reaction in zero light also..

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/animals/...

But even before these discoveries we had the Drake Equation.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5401
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I see you guys still have a problem with "determining" odds.
Why am I not surprised.
I have no problem , and my example was far short of the Drake Equation prediction.
But when we try to predict with a sample size of one , like Hedonist said it's really just guess work.
But the odds are actually higher than the Drake equation , but
no amount of calculation can really be accurate until we find another instance where life was even possible by temperature and the elements. I only pointed out there is plenty of possibility in the universe, and even then that is only counting the visible universe

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5402
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
Depends on how you play the numbers (isn't statistics fun).
Based on the observable fact that out of the sample of planets we know of where life as we know it could possibly exist (1), the actual incidence of life occurring is 1. This would statistically indicate that our of a sample of 1 we have 1 positive occurrence and therefore a 100% probability.
Admittedly working with a sample size of 1 violate all aspects of even basic probability, but it is the way the math works.
Probability really isn't applicable unless and until we get a larger sample size and a way to actually measure positive occurrences within the sample.
Good point.

And playing with words, confusing the probability of 100% in a galaxy to 100% in every galaxy.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5403
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
I see you guys still have a problem with "determining" odds. Why am I not surprised.
The Drake Equation isn't science:

Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated in a 2003 lecture at Caltech:

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses.[...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...

[]

One reply to such criticisms is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it was not meant to be science, but intended as a way to stimulate dialogue on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally. Indeed, Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference.

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

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5404
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The Drake Equation isn't science:
Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated in a 2003 lecture at Caltech:
The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses.[...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...
[]
One reply to such criticisms is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it was not meant to be science, but intended as a way to stimulate dialogue on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally. Indeed, Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Der.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5405
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The Drake Equation isn't science:
Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated in a 2003 lecture at Caltech:
The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses.[...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...
[]
One reply to such criticisms is that even though the Drake equation currently involves speculation about unmeasured parameters, it was not meant to be science, but intended as a way to stimulate dialogue on these topics. Then the focus becomes how to proceed experimentally. Indeed, Drake originally formulated the equation merely as an agenda for discussion at the Green Bank conference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The Drake equation is also a blueprint that focuses on intelligent life.

This wasn't my criteria or the criteria specified when we started talking about it, as the odds for intelligent life or civilizations is drastically different for the odds of "life".
Which maybe infinitely higher than the other.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5406
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

So many creationists trying to criticize science.

Will nanoanomaly & brian do us the pleasure of even providing a morsel of evidence for their ficitious god?

And will Nuggin ever sh*t the f*ck up? But that's a whole other thread...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5407
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
So many creationists trying to criticize science.
Will nanoanomaly & brian do us the pleasure of even providing a morsel of evidence for their ficitious god?
And will Nuggin ever sh*t the f*ck up? But that's a whole other thread...
Skippy, you once again demonstrate your inability to post anything of substance and you necessity to use the f word in every post.

How about you back up your claims?

For example, we're all still eagerly awaiting your evidence that C-14 dating is fake.

Hrmmm. never really followed up that with anything.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5409
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
So many creationists trying to criticize science.
Can you be specific?

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
Will nanoanomaly & brian do us the pleasure of even providing a morsel of evidence for their ficitious god?
I've never claimed to prove the existence of God; I've always said that belief is based on faith, not science.

.
-Skeptic- wrote:
And will Nuggin ever sh*t the f*ck up? But that's a whole other thread...
ngry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?

Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...

Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!

Man: What?

A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!

A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

M: Oh! Oh I see!

A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

M: Oh...Sorry...

A: Not at all!

A:(under his breath) stupid git.
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.p...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5410
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
For example, we're all still eagerly awaiting your evidence that C-14 dating is fake.
Do you regularily hallucinate and then enter this forum?

Is this chosen your strawman today? I guess you've exhausted calling people moon deniers and YECs.

I'm sorry that you don't understand science and probably can't accept / understand evolution, but this really is your problem's problem.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5411
Jan 12, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Can you be specific?
.
<quoted text>I've never claimed to prove the existence of God; I've always said that belief is based on faith, not science.
.
<quoted text>ngry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...
Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
Man: What?
A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
M: Oh! Oh I see!
A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
M: Oh...Sorry...
A: Not at all!
A:(under his breath) stupid git.
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.p...
No proof of god - you can stop lying about god now. I think your discovery institute is calling you back because you've failed to convert any atheists this month.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5412
Jan 12, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Can you be specific?
.
<quoted text>I've never claimed to prove the existence of God; I've always said that belief is based on faith, not science.
.
<quoted text>ngry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...
Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
Man: What?
A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
M: Oh! Oh I see!
A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
M: Oh...Sorry...
A: Not at all!
A:(under his breath) stupid git.
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.p...
There's no such thing as god, and you're not going to make god magically appear ever, because its an impossibility.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5413
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no such thing as god, and you're not going to make god magically appear ever, because its an impossibility.
Egypt was a real place. Egyptians were real people.

You aren't going to make them magically disappear simply because you have a problem with some other religion.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5414
Jan 12, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Egypt was a real place. Egyptians were real people.
You aren't going to make them magically disappear simply because you have a problem with some other religion.

But nugglet Think carefully before you say you found a real god.
We find real people everywhere.
We can go to "Egypt" and find them.
We can go anywhere and find what you call explosives.
But if they cannot explode.

They are duds , kinda like your claim.

Knowing is half the battle. You came without knowing or showing.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••