I will now wait for the first person to watch that video and say “Doesn’t it make you feel insignificant?”
It happens every time someone posts this kind of thing anywhere.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
Kinda awesome. I still don’t believe any life exists beyond our planet. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
Because the Nat Geo channel drives me insane. I’m a junkie for anything about the planets, but it drives me nuts to hear all these scientists explain something in detail and then turn around and assert there HAS to be life out there. Why? When pressed for an answer they turn into the 12 year kid who thinks you’re on steroids because you are big. ‘Because space it just so damn big it must be so’. [/quote]
I used to fall for the “because it’s so big” logic and I’ve come to question it after hearing out the “intelligent design” theories, not to be confused with creationism. Put simply, for life to have occurred without some guiding force (e.g. some form of intelligence), it’s some astronomical number against life happening randomly. When you consider that astounding number against life randomly occurring, even under “favorable” conditions like on earth, and you compare that number to the projected numbers of planets in space, you CAN start to wrap your mind around the possibility that we are indeed alone or very rare in the universe.
I do not believe we are “alone”. I think life here was probably the result of intelligent design, that earth was seeded in some manner, and that intelligent life is probably pretty rare in the universe, with lower forms being somewhat more common. But, what the fuck do I know? lol[/quote]
It’s not an astronomically small chance if you put it in the right context. The problem here is one of assumptions: If you were to pick one star in the universe (i.e. our Sun), then YES the chances of life AT THAT PLACE is infinitesimally small. However, the assumption is wrong because you are thinking of the minute chances of life happening HERE.
The correct way to think is that there is a very high chance that life has happened at some random place in the universe. That place happened to be here but there is NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT OUR PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE. We are that place where everything happened to break right…but it didn’t have to happen here.
Cliff notes: The odds of life at any one place are infinitesimally small, but the odds of life happening in random places throughout the universe are pretty high. We happened to be one of those places.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
When you consider that astounding number against life randomly occurring, even under “favorable” conditions like on earth, and you compare that number to the projected numbers of planets in space, you CAN start to wrap your mind around the possibility that we are indeed alone or very rare in the universe.[/quote]
And yet this discovery shows that we need to reconsider what kind of conditions it might be possible for life to exist in. I suspect we may even find life on other planets in our own solar system.
[quote]biglifter wrote:
Well, who’s the burden of proof on?
[/quote]
You’re already starting off on a logical fallacy. There’s no burden of proof in a case where neither person can prove his point. All you can do is take the facts and known variables, and arrive at the conclusion that is most likely given what you know.
I believe that conclusion is that life exists somewhere else. You do not. There is no way to PROVE either point, unless we actually find it of course (but even if I’m right, the odds of that are small).
Since you are obsessed with someone PROVING something, then let me ask you: What, specifically, about our solar system and planet caused life to exist here that is unique to our galactic area? If you’re asking me to prove my point, I’m gonna ask you to prove yours. What makes our Sun and Earth so special that this is the only place life can exist?
The fact is, if you’ve even taken a basic logic course… if you can’t prove our situation is unique to the rest of the universe, you must accept the possibility life can exist elsewhere. The next logical step is to say that if life CAN exist somewhere else, it PROBABLY does because there are just so many opportunities.
Let’s try some basic math. Lets say there is a 0.00000001% chance of life existing at any one star. If true, that would mean you’d expect the Milky Way (200 billion stars) to have 20 life-inhabiting planets. (side note: at that number, we would be extremely unlikely to ever have contact with any of them. Astronomically unlikely). And the Milky Way is a more or less average galaxy, of which there are practically infinitely more of in the universe. And even though I made that percentage up, the points is you simply can not put enough zeros in that decimal to make life elsewhere UNlikely.
You’re right, I can’t prove my point. But neither can you. And in the event that no one can PROVE either side, I tend to go with the odds. The odds say there is life elsewhere.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I’ll just put this here.
V[/quote]
Doesn’t it make you feel insignificant?
[quote]Daniel-San wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I’ll just put this here.
V[/quote]
Doesn’t it make you feel insignificant?[/quote]
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
When you consider that astounding number against life randomly occurring, even under “favorable” conditions like on earth, and you compare that number to the projected numbers of planets in space, you CAN start to wrap your mind around the possibility that we are indeed alone or very rare in the universe.[/quote]
And yet this discovery shows that we need to reconsider what kind of conditions it might be possible for life to exist in. I suspect we may even find life on other planets in our own solar system.[/quote]
x2, This amazes me. From what I have read and always understood to be true, TERESTRIAL Life always needs oxygen. carbon, hydrogen etc, but to now realize that a life form no matter how small it is, on our planet can survive w/o one of the essential elements to sustain life is awesome!
It makes you realize that you cannot consider what types of life are out in the Universe because you cannot quantify it with what elements we need to create life…admittedly this shit is way over my head, but to think about the possibility of life that is created through elements we never though we were useful in creating and sustaining life makes the possibilities so much more vast.
I also wonder if this discovery will lead to medical breakthroughs…this is a huge find!
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
Kinda awesome. I still don’t believe any life exists beyond our planet. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
Because the Nat Geo channel drives me insane. I’m a junkie for anything about the planets, but it drives me nuts to hear all these scientists explain something in detail and then turn around and assert there HAS to be life out there. Why? When pressed for an answer they turn into the 12 year kid who thinks you’re on steroids because you are big. ‘Because space it just so damn big it must be so’. [/quote]
I used to fall for the “because it’s so big” logic and I’ve come to question it after hearing out the “intelligent design” theories, not to be confused with creationism. Put simply, for life to have occurred without some guiding force (e.g. some form of intelligence), it’s some astronomical number against life happening randomly. When you consider that astounding number against life randomly occurring, even under “favorable” conditions like on earth, and you compare that number to the projected numbers of planets in space, you CAN start to wrap your mind around the possibility that we are indeed alone or very rare in the universe.
I do not believe we are “alone”. I think life here was probably the result of intelligent design, that earth was seeded in some manner, and that intelligent life is probably pretty rare in the universe, with lower forms being somewhat more common. But, what the fuck do I know? lol[/quote]
It’s not an astronomically small chance if you put it in the right context. The problem here is one of assumptions: If you were to pick one star in the universe (i.e. our Sun), then YES the chances of life AT THAT PLACE is infinitesimally small. However, the assumption is wrong because you are thinking of the minute chances of life happening HERE.
The correct way to think is that there is a very high chance that life has happened at some random place in the universe. That place happened to be here but there is NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT OUR PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE. We are that place where everything happened to break right…but it didn’t have to happen here.
Cliff notes: The odds of life at any one place are infinitesimally small, but the odds of life happening in random places throughout the universe are pretty high. We happened to be one of those places.
[/quote]
You’re looking at it wrong and with bad information. I’m not talking about OUR place. I’m talking about the events that had to randomly line up to CREATE life (DNA forming randomly, by chance) itself. It is ASTRONOMICAL odds against. I’m not even considering that our planet is hospitable.
[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
When you consider that astounding number against life randomly occurring, even under “favorable” conditions like on earth, and you compare that number to the projected numbers of planets in space, you CAN start to wrap your mind around the possibility that we are indeed alone or very rare in the universe.[/quote]
And yet this discovery shows that we need to reconsider what kind of conditions it might be possible for life to exist in. I suspect we may even find life on other planets in our own solar system.[/quote]
admitted.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
Kinda awesome. I still don’t believe any life exists beyond our planet. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
Because the Nat Geo channel drives me insane. I’m a junkie for anything about the planets, but it drives me nuts to hear all these scientists explain something in detail and then turn around and assert there HAS to be life out there. Why? When pressed for an answer they turn into the 12 year kid who thinks you’re on steroids because you are big. ‘Because space it just so damn big it must be so’. [/quote]
I used to fall for the “because it’s so big” logic and I’ve come to question it after hearing out the “intelligent design” theories, not to be confused with creationism. Put simply, for life to have occurred without some guiding force (e.g. some form of intelligence), it’s some astronomical number against life happening randomly. When you consider that astounding number against life randomly occurring, even under “favorable” conditions like on earth, and you compare that number to the projected numbers of planets in space, you CAN start to wrap your mind around the possibility that we are indeed alone or very rare in the universe.
I do not believe we are “alone”. I think life here was probably the result of intelligent design, that earth was seeded in some manner, and that intelligent life is probably pretty rare in the universe, with lower forms being somewhat more common. But, what the fuck do I know? lol[/quote]
It’s not an astronomically small chance if you put it in the right context. The problem here is one of assumptions: If you were to pick one star in the universe (i.e. our Sun), then YES the chances of life AT THAT PLACE is infinitesimally small. However, the assumption is wrong because you are thinking of the minute chances of life happening HERE.
The correct way to think is that there is a very high chance that life has happened at some random place in the universe. That place happened to be here but there is NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT OUR PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE. We are that place where everything happened to break right…but it didn’t have to happen here.
Cliff notes: The odds of life at any one place are infinitesimally small, but the odds of life happening in random places throughout the universe are pretty high. We happened to be one of those places.
[/quote]
You’re looking at it wrong and with bad information. I’m not talking about OUR place. I’m talking about the events that had to randomly line up to CREATE life (DNA forming randomly, by chance) itself. It is ASTRONOMICAL odds against. I’m not even considering that our planet is hospitable.[/quote]
Agreed. The odds against one success are enormous. But they are easily dwarfed by the relative enormity of the NUMBER of trial runs.
No matter how unlikely something is, it WILL be repeated given enough trial runs.
Said another way: the sheer number of stars in the universe virtually guarantees that IF life is even possible, it WILL exist somewhere. Given that we exist, obviously life is possible. And given that life is possible, the unconscionable number of stars in the universe guarantees that it happened somewhere else too.
UNLESS there is some reason that this solar system is unique from the rest. Which it isn’t.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
You’re looking at it wrong and with bad information. I’m not talking about OUR place. I’m talking about the events that had to randomly line up to CREATE life (DNA forming randomly, by chance) itself. It is ASTRONOMICAL odds against. I’m not even considering that our planet is hospitable.[/quote]
Agreed. The odds against one success are enormous. But they are easily dwarfed by the relative enormity of the NUMBER of trial runs.
No matter how unlikely something is, it WILL be repeated given enough trial runs.
[/quote]
Well, what if the astronomical number against life randomly occurring equals or exceeds the number of potential trials runs as you put it? That’s what I’m getting at and the basis for my no longer accepting that because the universe is so vast, that is must contain vast amounts of advanced life. I no longer believe that. However, I earlier mispoke when I said we are alone or extremely rare. If we are indeed the result of intelligent design, then by rule there probably is other intelligent life in the universe. I still don’t buy that it is common, but it must be out there.
Putting creationism aside for a moment, even if our planet was seeded in some fashion by comets and such, that is still not a case for abundant life given all the factors that needed to line up to create DNA or life as we know it.
I do agree with will most certainly find “life” as we continue to expand that definition and understanding, I just doubt the frequency of “intelligent life” as we know it.
[quote]Nards wrote:
I will now wait for the first person to watch that video and say “Doesn’t it make you feel insignificant?”
It happens every time someone posts this kind of thing anywhere.[/quote]
[quote]scj119 wrote:
Said another way: the sheer number of stars in the universe virtually guarantees that IF life is even possible, it WILL exist somewhere. Given that we exist, obviously life is possible. And given that life is possible, the unconscionable number of stars in the universe guarantees that it happened somewhere else too.
UNLESS there is some reason that this solar system is unique from the rest. Which it isn’t.[/quote]
Or to üut it snother way, in a practically infinite universe anything that is even remotely possible does not only happen once or twice but an infinitive number of times.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
Kinda awesome. I still don’t believe any life exists beyond our planet. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
Because the Nat Geo channel drives me insane. I’m a junkie for anything about the planets, but it drives me nuts to hear all these scientists explain something in detail and then turn around and assert there HAS to be life out there. Why? When pressed for an answer they turn into the 12 year kid who thinks you’re on steroids because you are big. ‘Because space it just so damn big it must be so’. [/quote]
I used to fall for the “because it’s so big” logic and I’ve come to question it after hearing out the “intelligent design” theories, not to be confused with creationism. Put simply, for life to have occurred without some guiding force (e.g. some form of intelligence), it’s some astronomical number against life happening randomly. When you consider that astounding number against life randomly occurring, even under “favorable” conditions like on earth, and you compare that number to the projected numbers of planets in space, you CAN start to wrap your mind around the possibility that we are indeed alone or very rare in the universe.
I do not believe we are “alone”. I think life here was probably the result of intelligent design, that earth was seeded in some manner, and that intelligent life is probably pretty rare in the universe, with lower forms being somewhat more common. But, what the fuck do I know? lol[/quote]
It’s not an astronomically small chance if you put it in the right context. The problem here is one of assumptions: If you were to pick one star in the universe (i.e. our Sun), then YES the chances of life AT THAT PLACE is infinitesimally small. However, the assumption is wrong because you are thinking of the minute chances of life happening HERE.
The correct way to think is that there is a very high chance that life has happened at some random place in the universe. That place happened to be here but there is NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT OUR PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE. We are that place where everything happened to break right…but it didn’t have to happen here.
Cliff notes: The odds of life at any one place are infinitesimally small, but the odds of life happening in random places throughout the universe are pretty high. We happened to be one of those places.
[/quote]
You’re looking at it wrong and with bad information. I’m not talking about OUR place. I’m talking about the events that had to randomly line up to CREATE life (DNA forming randomly, by chance) itself. It is ASTRONOMICAL odds against. I’m not even considering that our planet is hospitable.[/quote]
This argument put forth by ID proponents demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the Law of Large Numbers.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
Well, who’s the burden of proof on?
[/quote]
You’re already starting off on a logical fallacy. There’s no burden of proof in a case where neither person can prove his point. All you can do is take the facts and known variables, and arrive at the conclusion that is most likely given what you know.
I believe that conclusion is that life exists somewhere else. You do not. There is no way to PROVE either point, unless we actually find it of course (but even if I’m right, the odds of that are small).
Since you are obsessed with someone PROVING something, then let me ask you: What, specifically, about our solar system and planet caused life to exist here that is unique to our galactic area? If you’re asking me to prove my point, I’m gonna ask you to prove yours. What makes our Sun and Earth so special that this is the only place life can exist?
The fact is, if you’ve even taken a basic logic course… if you can’t prove our situation is unique to the rest of the universe, you must accept the possibility life can exist elsewhere. The next logical step is to say that if life CAN exist somewhere else, it PROBABLY does because there are just so many opportunities.
Let’s try some basic math. Lets say there is a 0.00000001% chance of life existing at any one star. If true, that would mean you’d expect the Milky Way (200 billion stars) to have 20 life-inhabiting planets. (side note: at that number, we would be extremely unlikely to ever have contact with any of them. Astronomically unlikely). And the Milky Way is a more or less average galaxy, of which there are practically infinitely more of in the universe. And even though I made that percentage up, the points is you simply can not put enough zeros in that decimal to make life elsewhere UNlikely.
You’re right, I can’t prove my point. But neither can you. And in the event that no one can PROVE either side, I tend to go with the odds. The odds say there is life elsewhere.[/quote]
Ok. But your logical fallacy kicked in the second you started make up numbers and claiming these “odds” based on gut feeling alone. Like I originally stated, I don’t think any other life is out there, and I left it at that. If neither of our points can be proven, you also need to state your believe and leave it at that. It just looks silly to start throwing numbers and percentages out there. Yes, space is big, thank you. Does it cause you pain to think there might not be some cosmic ameoba out there a couple trillion light years away?
[quote]orion wrote:
“Pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth.”
True that.
[quote]biglifter wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]biglifter wrote:
Well, who’s the burden of proof on?
[/quote]
You’re already starting off on a logical fallacy. There’s no burden of proof in a case where neither person can prove his point. All you can do is take the facts and known variables, and arrive at the conclusion that is most likely given what you know.
I believe that conclusion is that life exists somewhere else. You do not. There is no way to PROVE either point, unless we actually find it of course (but even if I’m right, the odds of that are small).
Since you are obsessed with someone PROVING something, then let me ask you: What, specifically, about our solar system and planet caused life to exist here that is unique to our galactic area? If you’re asking me to prove my point, I’m gonna ask you to prove yours. What makes our Sun and Earth so special that this is the only place life can exist?
The fact is, if you’ve even taken a basic logic course… if you can’t prove our situation is unique to the rest of the universe, you must accept the possibility life can exist elsewhere. The next logical step is to say that if life CAN exist somewhere else, it PROBABLY does because there are just so many opportunities.
Let’s try some basic math. Lets say there is a 0.00000001% chance of life existing at any one star. If true, that would mean you’d expect the Milky Way (200 billion stars) to have 20 life-inhabiting planets. (side note: at that number, we would be extremely unlikely to ever have contact with any of them. Astronomically unlikely). And the Milky Way is a more or less average galaxy, of which there are practically infinitely more of in the universe. And even though I made that percentage up, the points is you simply can not put enough zeros in that decimal to make life elsewhere UNlikely.
You’re right, I can’t prove my point. But neither can you. And in the event that no one can PROVE either side, I tend to go with the odds. The odds say there is life elsewhere.[/quote]
Ok. But your logical fallacy kicked in the second you started make up numbers and claiming these “odds” based on gut feeling alone. Like I originally stated, I don’t think any other life is out there, and I left it at that. If neither of our points can be proven, you also need to state your believe and leave it at that. It just looks silly to start throwing numbers and percentages out there. Yes, space is big, thank you. Does it cause you pain to think there might not be some cosmic ameoba out there a couple trillion light years away?
[/quote]
I was using those numbers as an example to prove a larger point – that even something with infinitesimally small odds is likely to occur more than once given the volume of the universe. I just don’t think the odds of life can possibly be small enough to outweigh the number of chances it has.
It doesn’t pain me to think that we’re alone. I couldn’t care less whether we’re the only life or not. I BELIEVE that to be true, but I don’t CARE if it is.
What I care about is when people believe things contrary to evidence at hand (and appropriate logical use of that evidence).
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
Said another way: the sheer number of stars in the universe virtually guarantees that IF life is even possible, it WILL exist somewhere. Given that we exist, obviously life is possible. And given that life is possible, the unconscionable number of stars in the universe guarantees that it happened somewhere else too.
UNLESS there is some reason that this solar system is unique from the rest. Which it isn’t.[/quote]
Or to �¼ut it snother way, in a practically infinite universe anything that is even remotely possible does not only happen once or twice but an infinitive number of times.
[/quote]
QFT
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
You’re looking at it wrong and with bad information. I’m not talking about OUR place. I’m talking about the events that had to randomly line up to CREATE life (DNA forming randomly, by chance) itself. It is ASTRONOMICAL odds against. I’m not even considering that our planet is hospitable.[/quote]
Agreed. The odds against one success are enormous. But they are easily dwarfed by the relative enormity of the NUMBER of trial runs.
No matter how unlikely something is, it WILL be repeated given enough trial runs.
[/quote]
Well, what if the astronomical number against life randomly occurring equals or exceeds the number of potential trials runs as you put it? That’s what I’m getting at and the basis for my no longer accepting that because the universe is so vast, that is must contain vast amounts of advanced life. I no longer believe that. However, I earlier mispoke when I said we are alone or extremely rare. If we are indeed the result of intelligent design, then by rule there probably is other intelligent life in the universe. I still don’t buy that it is common, but it must be out there.
Putting creationism aside for a moment, even if our planet was seeded in some fashion by comets and such, that is still not a case for abundant life given all the factors that needed to line up to create DNA or life as we know it.
I do agree with will most certainly find “life” as we continue to expand that definition and understanding, I just doubt the frequency of “intelligent life” as we know it.[/quote]
Ah, I see. Essentially we have the same belief, only you believe that the odds are SO small, there aren’t enough chances in the universe to make it likely to happen even once…let alone twice.
Whereas I believe the universe is so unfathomably huge that anything with even the slightest possibility of happening has happened many times over. IMO something either exists in zero places in the universe, or it exists in (practically) infinitely many places.
Take any probability equation. It does not matter HOW small you make the chances of success – when the number of trials approaches infinite, so does the number of successes.
Has this thread been hijacked enough?