|
|
|
|
#31
05-07-2008
|
||||
|
||||
I have to say I disagree with your assessment, spencer. Simply because you can tie something to the Bible does not mean that the Bible or any other religion forms the core of the discussion. As darkarcher says and as my own research has indicated, the Bible says nothing about other life forms. Personally, I think it is highly probable that there is at least animal life on a few planets. After all, there are trillions, nay, quadrillions of planets out there and I doubt we have documented them all. Sentient, intelligent life, on the other hand...Who is to say?
|
|
#32
05-07-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
You misinterpret what I was saying. Assuming that evolution is true as defined by popular, alien life is much more likely to remain in a bacterial state, especially if it developed at a later point than earth.
I was not saying that all life is bacterial, but I was saying that chances are that we are the only "intelligent" life.
|
|
#33
05-07-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
But research has stated that earth is a very young planet. There are many other planets that are much older then their own. But why would alien life be more likely to stay as a bacterial life form?
Evolution states that we were once chimps, but they became carnivorous and started to eat meat. Along with us standing on 2 legs which saved us energy allowing that energy to be transfered to improving our brains allowing us to become who we are today. Now why can that not happen on other planets?
|
|
#34
05-07-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
...Ok, I will admit to not knowing everything about evolution, but I don't remember that being anywhere in the theory. Also, the conditions for life to be suppourted would be quite strict. Planets where the environs are in constant turmoil wouldn't be suited to life, for example.
|
|
#35
05-07-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am merely stating the chances, not my actual beliefs. The chances of evolution happening on earth is phenomenal. The chances of the same thing happening on another planet is not double that, but squared. Every planet you add multiplies the chances. You eventually reach the point of basic impossibility. If, instead, God created it, then that life could be either intelligent or not depending on what he wanted.
My personal view is that evolution is false and that earth is the only planet with life. However, I'm flexible enough that I don't simply discount the possibilities.
|
|
#37
05-07-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
All earth needed for bacteria is spontaneous generation...in essence, I find evolution to be inherently flawed. It could be true, but the odds are worse than being struck by lightning twice after winning every lottery in Vegas within 5 seconds of each other.
|
|
#38
05-07-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
...I feel like calculating the odds of that now.
Anyway, darkarcher is correct in that the odds are astronomical. However, when you consider the age of the universe as a whole and the sheer number of planets, I don't think the odds against it are quite that long. Still improbable, but at least remotely possible.
|
|
#41
05-07-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
But we are here. So why can that same anomaly not occur again? Odds aside but if something happens once, can it not happen again?
Where do these odds come from that we are against the odds. Since we have been on earth the most common form of evolution is the difference between black and white people. You may think its just skin color but, darker skin people are less prone to heat and sun burn. Which is why they are originally from hotter countries and islands. Where white people are from cooler countries. People evolved to cope with the environment.
|
|
#42
05-07-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just for us to have the chance to have existed, the conditions had to be perfect. The Earth had to be just the right distance from the sun and we had to not be wiped out by any of countless global and interstellar events. As I said, I am hardly an expert on evolution, but merely thinking about the idea of how we formed with any knowledge about evolution would show you just how many chances we had to fail along the way to this point. For this to happen twice, let alone multiple times, the odds would increase nigh exponentially. You see, just because an event happened once does not make the event any likelier to happen.
It is just skin color. Melanoma is what determines that and yes, it can prevent sunburns. I would hardly quantify it as the most common form of evolution though.
|
|
#43
05-07-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Really and why is that? Would you argue that with the scientific minds?
Black and white skin is different to cope in different areas of earth. So thus the original humans were white. Then as they spread all over the world those skin colors changed. That us evolution, Evolution means to change in order to adapt to ones environment. But in the widespread of the entire universe, billions of planets, billions of solar systems. You actually think that no where in the universe could the miracle of life happen anywhere else. The odds don't decrease with every planet that it happens on. The ods remain the same becuase the only control factor that evolution requires is "the planet"
|
|
#44
05-07-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just a small correction, if I may. If I recall, research shows that the very first human beings actually originated from the African region and had dark skin, not light skin.
As far as Evolution is concerned, if it does have one weakness, it is chance. Now mind, that does not make it impossible, but many are not content with an explanation like, "Well, it just happened to fall this particular way." It is much easier to explain the existence of life through theology, since there are many things we still do not yet understand. However, to do so, one would need very strong faith, and the ability to suspend doubts about theological arguments. Evolution and Creationism CAN live in harmony at certain points, though. There are those who believe that God created the universe, as well as the original forms of life, and that humanity eventually developed from that original life. But that is just one of many possibilities. Both arguments hold water, and both have weaknesses, but I believe some sort of middle ground can be reached. I believe it is the more extreme elements of both sides who would reject even attempts at finding some such mutual understanding.
|
|
#45
05-07-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
You are correct on that they originated in Africa, but because of the think hair the "chimps" we originated from had white skin. Same as any animal.
Althoe there is no definite answer to where and how we came about. As you say there are flaws and strong points to any and all arguments we can never know. All the research in the world will never give us a definite answer. The only way we can possibly find this all out is when we die. Even then we may not for if there is no supreme being when we pass on, we just completely vanish then thats it. All the faith in the world can not change the fact that if there is no God then there isnt.
|
|
#46
05-07-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, faith itself does not change what the truth is. However, it usually requires some amount of faith to accept Creationism or a related theological theory. You do have a point that we really will not know at least until we pass on, and that no amount of scientific inquiry can give us the true, definitive answer.
I believe the fact that people talk about it at all is the point- stimulation of conversation and a meshing together and testing of thoughts and ideas tends to strengthen good arguments, break weak ones, and contribute to the general good of collective human intellect. I honestly believe that that is the true reason such debates (on existence, or development, or perhaps just about anything) are so crucial to our society.
|
|
#47
05-08-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Your sentence seems to imply I am arguing from a religious viewpoint...
I was not implying that there is no other forms of life, I was merely stating that, even if there is, the odds that said life is sentient are far larger than life simply existing. Also, it is my understanding that the odds do indeed get far larger. Take flipping a coin to get heads or tails. When you first flip the coin, there is a 50% chance it will get heads. The second flip, there is a 25% chance. I believe you need to study statistics a bit further than you have.
|
|
#48
05-08-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
But we are not talking about flipping a coin.
When speaking of the coin the control for the experiment is the coin its self. In that scenario what you mean is to get the same heads twice in a row its 25%, other then that to get heads a second time is the same, 50% the coin still has 2 sides. But the control is not a flip of the coin, the chance here is to get a planet the same as earth, as in equality of the sun. Then bacteria form. Then that is the beginnings to evolution. You already have heads just by the planet being in the same spot. Its not like the odds are trying to get the earth in the same spot, and as its gravity that predicts that then there are starts in the universe that are the same size as our sun, althoe ours is smaller then most, so its not the same length its the same percentage away from the sun, With all different shapes and sizes there has to be at least a few in our wide spread universe.
|
|
#49
05-08-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm sorry, but you really don't understand odds, do you?
Even with prime conditions, the chance of evolution is incredibly high...let's say 1 in 1 billion, just for our purposes. It is altually much higher. Now, 1 billion has 9 zeroes after it. For evolution to happen on two planets, the odds would jump to 1 in 1 quintillion (1 followed by 18 zeroes). Another planet would be 1 in 1 octillion (1 followed by 21 zeroes). Remember that 1 in a 1 billion is much lower than the actual chances of evolution.
|
|
#50
05-08-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
...And I am done here. This is honestly one of the more skewed discussions I have partaken in. First off, you seem to have assumed in every one of my posts that I claimed there is no life, intelligent or not, anywhere else. My second post in this thread near the top of the second page states the exact opposite, though I don't hold out hope for us ever meeting intelligent life. Other life forms, bacterial or on the level of flora and fauna are more probable than intelligent life, however. Have fun.
|
|
#51
05-08-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
No the odds would get higher if you were talking about the exact same evolution as what happened here on earth.
If they were high chances then wouldn't it be less then one million, what you are trying to say is they would be low. Its ok i understand what you are trying to say. Understand this evolution does not require everything to be perfect. Because evolution needs only bacteria. Evolution is changing ones self in order to adapt to the environment, There is nothing to say that the evolution must follow human evolution they could be completely different beings heck they don't have to speak English. You think think way to high of the requirements to evolution.
|
|
#52
05-08-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Arguments over statistics seem rather pointless. We have no way of knowing what the odds are that evolution will occur. To determine the likelihood of life on other planets, we must first gain a better understanding of where life originates from. Since it has yet to be discovered how the most primitive lifeforms came to be, there is no way to know the probability of life on other planets.
|
|
#53
05-09-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well I just read a very interesting article, a speech from Steven hawking. Since he is one of the top minds in this field I think you should have a read, it proves most of what we all said wrong about other life. But it also throws out the window of creatism.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html
|
|
#54
05-09-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks for the article. Compelling stuff. I had never even considered the probability of asteriod collisions contributing to the development of life.
However, I don't believe that Hawking was mentioning creationism because he thought it was a serious possibility. He only brings up the intelligent designer theory once and then he immediately discredits the statement he made by bringing up the anthropic principle. Since the article was just a text form of a lecture he gave, you can't be certain that he wasn't mentioning creationism out of jest.
|
|
#55
05-09-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Think about it, Steven Hawking is a man of science, I believe that he thinks more of the scientific possibility's over that of religious. But I would love to see more about what he thinks in more lectures or even some articles. I am looking into more of what he has to say and will post it here to keep you updated, you seem to know the most out of the theories and can appreciate the knowledge and information that i can bring up.
|
|
#56
05-11-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
There is no evidence, or even anything that points to God existing.
There is no need for God. Still, people claim God exists. Doesn't make any sense.
|
|
#57
05-11-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
The problem with God is not evidence. If God exists, then the entire universe is evidence for that fact. If God does not exist, then what is the harm in believing that one does?
How can you say there is no need for God unless you can prove God does not exist (which you can't, by the way)? Once again, there is need for God if God exists, but what is the harm if God does not exist? In the end, God is beyond being proven by man. You cannot scientifically say there is a God, nor can you scientifically say that there is not one.
|
|
#58
05-11-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
No Dark Hen is rite. The entire belief of the the world over thousands of years was just proven wrong by him with NO evidence whats so ever.
The bible, there is evidence. "thats not evidence" well yes that may be true, but theres more evidence in the bible then you have to prove he isnt. So since you have no hard evidence that he does not exist, then by your logic of having no evidence then there must be a God. This entire discussion is backed by facts and reason. Do not come in here say "this and that" with no backup or reasonable arguement. You just make your self look like an idiot.
|
|
#59
05-11-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Anyway, I feel like we're getting off-topic.
Intelligent life...hmm...do you think there's any validity behind supposed extra-terrestrial encounters?
|
|
#60
05-11-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Its not going off topic. This topic has many different sub topics. If you read the entire conversation we have talked about all of this and read a lecture from Steven Hawking explaining about all of this, and since that we have almost completely exhausted evolution and all of those theories then obviously the next step is creatism, in order to talk about that then we must discuss the possibility's of God and whether he exists or not.
Its not going off topic just because we are not talking about the intelligent life else where there are only so many ways you can say yes or no. The discussion will continue on its own path.
|
 |
|
|
