Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life on other Planets?
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 61 of 160 (594561)
12-03-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by lyx2no
12-03-2010 9:33 PM


Re: Joy
Was that all the point you were trying to make? Did you really think you had to fool us to get there? The sad part is for all the saying of "Life on other planets yes, because and "Ecto-dimensional creators no, because" you failed to hear any of it.
What did I fail to hear? (Please explain in non-vulcan language so I can figure out what you are trying to say)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by lyx2no, posted 12-03-2010 9:33 PM lyx2no has seen this message but not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 62 of 160 (594564)
12-03-2010 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by lyx2no
12-03-2010 9:33 PM


Re: Joy
Let me see if I can somehow try to decipher your code.
I was trying to fool you? I was fooling you because I asked a question about who believes in alien life, and then I drew observations from your answers? That was fooling someone? You mean I might have known from the outset that hypocrisy that everyone of you would believe in alien life but not in a God?
You mean I should have said, I want to know who believes in alien life, but be warned any information you give could be used as evidence about how you think, so careful how you answer!
Maybe I plotted with NASA about the timing of their news release as well. And Frako must be in on it as well, because he introduced the subject! Be careful, you are being watched!! Look out!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by lyx2no, posted 12-03-2010 9:33 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by lyx2no, posted 12-03-2010 11:03 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 160 (594565)
12-03-2010 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 9:55 PM


Re: Huh?????
Good. Glad you understand that.
Now let's take the next baby step.
We have one planet where we have really done much exploration, and in that one sample we find life existing under just about every imaginable environment.
In addition, all of the data so far indicated that the laws of nature and the composition of matter is the same everywhere we look in the universe.
Finally, when we have look around the universe we find that the elements we see in life here and many of the things we associate with life here such as amino acids are common throughout the universe.
As we learn more and more it seems that the planet we live on is not all that unusual.
So, since we know that 100% of the planets we have explored in detail have life, is there some reason to think that life might not be as common elsewhere as here?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 9:55 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 160 (594566)
12-03-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 9:55 PM


Re: Huh?????
Life on Earth is evidence for life on other planets..get the fuck...wait, what?!
Well, yeah, it is. Life on other planets would be on planets that are like Earth.
And, gosh, here's an Earth-like planet right here, crammed with life!
Do you see the difference? Metaphysical life would be completely different than any physical life, and its existence would be contingent on factors that are utterly irrelevant to physical life. (Metaphysical anything would have to exist, for instance.) But life on other planets would be on planets very similar to Earth, and it would be very similar to the life that is on Earth. So if life on other planets exists, it will be contingent on factors that life on Earth is also contingent on.
And what a surprise, there's life on Earth! That proves those contingent factors are present. Thus, it lends support to the notion of life on other planets.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 9:55 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 65 of 160 (594567)
12-03-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 9:55 PM


Re: Huh?????
Bolder-dash writes:
Physical life is evidence for meta-physical life! get outta here! Life on Earth is evidence for life on other planets..get the fuck...wait, what?!
The logic is quite simple.
1) Is there evidence of physical life? Yes.
2) Is there evidence of physical life on a planet? Yes - Earth.
3) Is there evidence of other planets? Yes.
4) Could physical life exist on those other planets? It is possible.
or
1) Is there evidence of meta-physical life? No.
It is not too difficult to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 9:55 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 10:36 PM Panda has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 66 of 160 (594570)
12-03-2010 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
12-03-2010 8:53 PM


Next time you're in the casino, do the math.
I think here is the problem. He can't do the math.
As you have said casinos know exactly how much they are going to make on everything. If you walk through vegas you will see slots that advertise 95% payback. If I win $100 then there are going to be a lot of people losing a couple dollars here and there. There will also be people losing more. The odds are programmed into the machines. You can also figure out the odds for table games too.
His argument that the casinos have to keep people playing long enough to do something stupid is ludicrous. Yes , casinos do hope people bet stupidly but they cannot rely on that. They can rely on probability.
The first sign he was talking out his ass was when he claimed to have never have lost money in being to casinos hundreds of times. If people could win consistently in casinos they wouldn't call it gambling, they would call it winning and there would be no casinos.
You are correct in that psychology gets the mark into the casino, but the odds is what makes them the money.
Do you think he can understand how casinos make money on sports betting? Maybe he needs to take a lesson from a bookie.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2010 8:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2010 10:32 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 74 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 11:05 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 102 by Larni, posted 12-04-2010 3:26 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 67 of 160 (594572)
12-03-2010 10:19 PM


I would offer to run a sweepstake on what the fuck Bolder-dash is talking about if I thought that there was the remotest chance of us ever finding out.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 68 of 160 (594575)
12-03-2010 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Theodoric
12-03-2010 10:19 PM


Do you think he can understand how casinos make money on sports betting?
I don't think Bolder-Dash could understand how to pour piss from a boot with a diagram on the heel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 12-03-2010 10:19 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 69 of 160 (594576)
12-03-2010 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Panda
12-03-2010 10:14 PM


Re: Huh?????
Well, let me take a little stab at your cute little logic if I may:
-The universe is either chaos or ordered.
-Chaos could be described as a lack of a plan, a lack of consistency, a lack of form, a lack of structure of organization or of meaning.
-Order could be described as structure, as consistency, as form, as organization, as observable, verifiable forms of meaning.
-From our observable experience we know that order is more likely when something is intelligently crafted, whereas chaos is more likely when there is no intelligence at work.
-Our universe appears to have order based on our observations, therefore it is more likely to be derived from an intelligent source.
-God is the name people give to an intelligent source, therefore a God is likely.
Thank you for showing me the way Panda! You are indeed enlightened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Panda, posted 12-03-2010 10:14 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2010 10:44 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 71 by jar, posted 12-03-2010 10:49 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 76 by Meldinoor, posted 12-03-2010 11:12 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 12-04-2010 8:16 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 160 (594577)
12-03-2010 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 10:36 PM


Re: Huh?????
From our observable experience we know that order is more likely when something is intelligently crafted, whereas chaos is more likely when there is no intelligence at work.
I this is where you go off the rails. Order emerges from the expenditure of energy, not the expenditure of intelligence.
Many phenomena in the universe are self-ordering. Crystals, for instance, form with no intelligent input whatsoever.
God is the name people give to an intelligent source
What, any intelligence? So, I'm God? You're God? (Well, maybe not you.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 10:36 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 11:02 PM crashfrog has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 71 of 160 (594578)
12-03-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 10:36 PM


Topic?
I'm sorry but what does an of that nonsense have to do with the topic which in case you forgot is "Life on other Planets?"
Is there some reason you never seem to be able to post stuff related to the topic?
Huh? Even if that was true (which has not been shown so far), what does that have to do with the topic?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 10:36 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Larni, posted 12-04-2010 3:29 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 72 of 160 (594582)
12-03-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
12-03-2010 10:44 PM


Re: Huh?????
Many phenomena in the universe are self-ordering. Crystals, for instance, form with no intelligent input whatsoever.
Wait a second there pal, this is where you have gone off the rails.
First, we are talking about likelihood, get it? Just because you can think of one thing that could possibly resemble order that was possibly not intelligently crafted (you do realize that crystal are made of atoms, and predictable molucular structure and they have properties of positive and negative charges and a whole host of other forces which have order aren't you?), and this does nothing to change the bulk of our experience being that order is more likely from intelligence.
But you know what crashfrog, I respond to you occasionally just to hopefully get you to realize how fucking pathetic your arguments, not for the purpose of actually having a prolonged discussion with you, because honestly I find you of very low intelligence, so I find it very unsatisfying to converse with someone that you are guaranteed to not learn or gain any benefit from whatsoever.
Plus not conversing with you is probably much better than constantly telling you to go get screwed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2010 10:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Coyote, posted 12-03-2010 11:07 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 12-03-2010 11:19 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(2)
Message 73 of 160 (594583)
12-03-2010 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 10:10 PM


Re: Joy
Let me see if I can somehow try to decipher your code.
No code, that's just you pretending that my statement wasn't patently obvious so that you can continue to pretend that Jesus loves you.
You mean I might have known from the outset that hypocrisy that everyone of you would believe in alien life but not in a God?
What hypocrisy? That two utterly different things are treated in utterly different way? That's called discretion not hypocrisy.
Now, that there is a ubiquitous belief in gods among human societies is evidence that there would be a similar belief in gods among possible intelligent societies on other worlds. And yes, that is without knowledge of any actual existence of intelligent societies on other worlds. But neither there nor here is belief in something evidence of that thing.
You keep getting caught up in that 'belief' thing, while ignoring how someone got to the belief. That makes your whole point kind of trivial. If you just pulled your beliefs out of your backside and I just pulled my beliefs out of my backside we'd be on equal footing. That "equal footing" bit is the bit you seen to rely on in many of your arguments. But neither of us pulls our beliefs out of our backsides, now do we? I form mine from the best and most profound efforts of the greatest minds available to me; whereas, you form yours from the stuff pulled out of the backsides of 5000 years worth of the best effort of astrapophobic troglodytes. Our distinctly differing beliefs not on equal footing. And in case you think that's some sort of code let me restate it: your beliefs are laboriously stupid.

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 10:10 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 74 of 160 (594584)
12-03-2010 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Theodoric
12-03-2010 10:19 PM


Well, Theo, its a true story. I am sorry if your world is so jaded that nothing amazing and hard to believe ever happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 12-03-2010 10:19 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 75 of 160 (594586)
12-03-2010 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 11:02 PM


Re: Huh?????
First, we are talking about likelihood, get it? Just because you can think of one thing that could possibly resemble order that was possibly not intelligently crafted (you do realize that crystal are made of atoms, and predictable molucular structure and they have properties of positive and negative charges and a whole host of other forces which have order aren't you?)...
But you can't show that the "order" was from intelligence. That is a logical leap far beyond what the evidence shows.
...and this does nothing to change the bulk of our experience being that order is more likely from intelligence.
Again, far beyond the evidence.
You are just reciting your catechism as if that were evidence. (See tagline below.)
That doesn't make it in the world of science. Perhaps you should stick to religious apologetics where the sort of evidence you prefer is the norm.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-03-2010 11:02 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024