Life on other Planets?

It seems unlikely that Earth would be the only planet where abiogenesis occurred, but there's no data to support the existence of life on any other planet.So I don't know.

Well, it depends what you play. There are a couple casino games where you can use skill to beat the house. Poker, obviously, you can beat the house because you don't play against the house. Blackjack, you can use progressive betting strategies when the shoe is "hot", or contains a disproportionate number of cards that will cause the dealer to bust. It's possible to do pretty well at craps if you can recognize the tables with advantageous rules and use a betting system to minimize your buy-in losses and maximize your rewards.But remember - you play against the house, but the house doesn't play against you. The house plays against everyone. Statistics describes random behavior in the aggregate, not in the specific, and in that context it is very reliable indeed. But statistics isn't a way to predict discreet outcomes at 100% certainty, it's a way to predict the distribution of aggregate outcomes. (A 60% chance of rain doesn't tell you that it will or won't rain today.) It may very well be the case that for every dollar you spend at the casino, you walk out with a dollar and ninety cents. But in aggregate, for every dollar that everybody is spending at the casino, they get eighty cents or so back. Your wins are basically a wealth transfer from the rest of the crowd to you, with the casino taking an enormous percentage for the privilege.No individual example can prove statistics wrong, because statistics doesn't describe individual outcomes, it describes outcomes in aggregate. A .300 batting average doesn't tell you whether or not a batter will hit a home run on his next up at plate. It tells you how many home runs he'll hit in his next 100 at-bats. You're not an empirical test, you're a single anecdote. Stats, because the difference proves your information is wrong.

No, they make about 20% or so.You can calculate their take from the odds, by calculating the expected return value. You'll find that every casino runs about .75 to .8 expected value - that is, for every dollar a player bets in a game, they should expect to get about eighty cents back.Again, this is aggregate, not specific. Some people are going to lose all their money, some people are going to win. Overall, the casino keeps twenty cents out of every dollar that gets played. No, 100% wrong. Casinos are in the odds business. They're in the business of aggregating dollars. You have the experience of putting some money on black and letting it ride. The casino has the experience of taking $100,000 in bets every hour and only having to pay out $80,000 in wins. That's $20,000 an hour for doing nothing more than keeping the lights on.There's literally nothing "gambling" about what the casino is doing. Running a casino is a lot like pouring a crowd through a sieve where they pass through but their money stays behind.

Life in the universe is manifest. You can look around and see it. If it's here it stands to reason that it's probably somewhere else.God is not manifest. There is no place you can go where you can see any evidence of God whatsoever. None at all. So it doesn't make sense to suggest that there's a God anywhere."The existence of life" and the "existence of God" are two completely different positions. No, there's no evidence for any God. Why did they have to come from anywhere? Where in the universe can you go where there's no laws of nature or physical properties? Why do you think that these things could ever be absent? Oh, shit, you really got us! I don't think I've been this burned since junior high AV club.

Clearly, I know far more than you.You know, since I can do math.

Psychology only makes you money in advertising. Keeping people in the casino and playing games doesn't make them any money unless the casino makes money on the games.Do you understand that? That if the casino pays out more in wins than they take in in losses, they lose money? I can't believe even you are dumb enough to think that casinos are in business to lose money.The odds come first. You can even check! Next time you're in the casino, do the math. You'll see that most games are getting you less than 80 cents to the dollar. That difference is the casino's profit. Where else would it come from?

That's certainly not what any of them said in this thread. Did you even bother reading any of the responses? Clearly not. If it's hogwash, refute it. You don't know how to, though, do you?

But there's no evidence of anything that is metaphysical. So physical life isn't evidence for metaphysical life; it's only evidence for physical life in other locations.

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.

I don't think Bolder-Dash could understand how to pour piss from a boot with a diagram on the heel.

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. What, any intelligence? So, I'm God? You're God? (Well, maybe not you.)

You mean probability? Aren't you the one who thinks probability is just a liberal conspiracy?I'm curious how you're arriving at these likelihoods. Show your math. You know, math? Numbers? Those things above the letters on your keyboard. I assume that somebody at some point must have had the patience to show you how they work together? Think back - you know, all those times you repeated the fifth grade. Showing examples of order that does not derive from intelligence proves that order does not imply intelligence. Just keep thinking about it, you'll get it. You actually stand to learn a lot from me, and from the other posters here. The problem is that you're so stupid, you think you already know everything. Nobody here is an obstacle to your intellectual development but you. The only one standing in the way of your learning is you.And because we're all better people than you, we'll still be here when you finally realize how much you have to learn. We'll be here to help you, just as soon as you're ready to ask.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't. Certainly the responses in this thread are not statements of unquestioning, blind faith; but rather highly qualified and universally marked by a reticence to take a position supported by no evidence.I mean, we're not dumb, Bolder. Everybody knew what you were going to do as soon as you opened the thread. Here's a representative sample of the replies:

quote:

---

Probably

---

quote:

---

I don't know.

---

quote:

---

Life on other planets is probable, but there is little evidence either way. I'll wait until there is.

---

quote:

---

I would need more data.

---

quote:

---

No.

---

quote:

---

Whether or not there is life elsewhere in the universe is something that may never be known for sure

---

quote:

---

... witouth evidence [of] actual life found there i cant give a clear yes.

---

quote:

---

No evidence to make that claim

---

quote:

---

I don't have physical verifiable reproducible evidence to support such a statement.

---

Just to be clear, these are the replies from which you're concluding that evolutionists "overwhelmingly, as in virtually without exception" have absolute blind faith in the existence of extraterrestrial life.Fess up, Bolder. You were going to accuse us of having blind faith anyway, no matter what we wrote. Weren't you? As for "blind faith" - if the statements I quoted had been made in the context of belief in God, I think you would have accused each and every utterer as being an atheist or at least an agnostic. Nobody would construe "I would need more data", for instance, as a profession of unquestioning faith in God.The only thing that makes you look stupider than trying to set up a really obvious trap is when your quarry spots the trap and you try to spring it anyway. You didn't even read our replies, did you? You just assumed that we were all Star Trek nerds who would "overwhelmingly, virtually without any exception" have utter confidence in life on other planets.Man, you truly are a moron.

No, but I'm sure you did as you read it. Fabricate information?Did people type those words, or didn't they, Bolder? You asserted that "overwhelmingly, as in virtually without exception" that every evolutionists who replied in this thread expressed completely unqualified, total support for the notion of extra-terrestrial life.Yet, in fact, not a single participant did so. There's not a single post in this thread that expresses that kind of support. Can you find even a single one? No, of course not.Because you're a liar. I'm quite certain that you do. Well, wait now. "Minimum affirmation of probably"? That's a far cry from the blind, unquestioning faith you repeatedly asserted earlier. So now you admit you were lying. It means exactly what I said it means - that no matter what evolutionists told you, you were going to accuse us all of "overwhelmingly, as in virtually without exception" having "blind faith in life on other planets, but not in God." I mean, never mind how many of the evolutionists here actually already believe in God - we're not uniformly atheists, not by any means - that was the accusation you were going to make, regardless. As you've now admitted:

quote:

---

I don't think the answers would have been different from anyone at all

---

Translation - you were going to make the exact same dishonest attack no matter what anybody said.You're a liar, Bolder, and you've just admitted it. And you'll get away with it, because of the special rules for creationists. Well, that's fine - everybody knows what you are. Already knew, in fact. It's not like this is the first time you've utterly failed to demonstrate any degree of honesty, after all.

A lie? Weren't you paying attention to the replies? Coyote came right out and told you that he didn't have a belief in extraterrestrial life: Fess up, Bolder. You were always going to make the same accusation no matter what anybody told you. Did you even read any of the replies? In fact, you git, the conditions are precisely wrong for it - due to all the life that's already here. The inorganic high-energy molecules necessary for abiogenesis have long since been scavenged - ah, hell, why even bother? I doubt you have the mental capacity to understand even a single word in that sentence. I'd have more success explaining the conditions of the pre-biotic Earth and the RNA world to my cat than I would trying to explain it to you. Has there ever been even a single time you started a discussion to try to learn something, Bolder-Dash? How come that's something nobody can find any evidence of?