Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 6:24 AM
340 online now:
NoNukes, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 337 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,344 Year: 23,950/21,208 Month: 1,915/2,468 Week: 8/416 Day: 8/24 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Life on other Planets?
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 76 of 160 (594590)
12-03-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 10:36 PM


Re: Huh?????
Hello Bolder-dash,

Imagine all you knew of was the Atlantic ocean. You find that it teems with life. Then one day you come across another ocean. It has similar characteristics to the Atlantic. You might therefore suppose that it is likely to also have life in it.

Then somebody asks you if you think there's life on the sun. Any life that could live on the sun would be completely different than any life that you know of, so the existence of life in the ocean has no bearing on whether there might be life on the sun.

Similarly, we know that the earth is one out of a countless number of planets out there. Given similar conditions elsewhere, there is no reason why we should expect there not be life out there. Whereas "metaphysical life" is about as evidenced as is life on the sun. Just because we know that life can thrive under earth-like conditions, this gives no credence to either sun-life or spirits.

You seem opposed to the existence of life anywhere but earth, yet you do not find it difficult to believe in some form of life that is completely un-evidenced. What basis do you have to believe in anything "meta-physical"?

Even if you could show that the universe had been "ordered" by some intelligence, the only known source of intelligence is physical life, and thus you'd only be making a case for some advanced physical being. Yet that is exactly what you oppose!

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

PS. And by the way, I'm not a real big fan of sci-fi. Most of the time they get the science too wrong and ruin the suspension of disbelief for me.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 12:36 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 160 (594592)
12-03-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 11:02 PM


Re: Huh?????
First, we are talking about likelihood, get it?

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.

this does nothing to change the bulk of our experience being that order is more likely from intelligence.

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.

I find it very unsatisfying to converse with someone that you are guaranteed to not learn or gain any benefit from whatsoever.

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.


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

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1162 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 78 of 160 (594608)
12-04-2010 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Meldinoor
12-03-2010 11:12 PM


Re: Huh?????
What you are trying to call evidence for anything is actually just speculation. First you can speculate that abiogenesis is possible without having the slightest bit of evidence that it is. What makes you think this is even possible? Anything other than your faith?

I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of your thinking. Trying to make an argument that there is more evidence for alien life than for a force that created the cosmos, that created gravity, and energy, and atomic forces, and heat and cold and thermo dynamics....just is not a very strong argument. In order to believe that you have to believe that all of the forces of the universe just poofed out by arbitrary chaos. That's a big stretch. It is an argument that can only be made by someone who WANTS a particular outcome. Not by anyone who is objectively looking at what we have evidence for. Why is your speculation that it 'must be' valid only in this instance and not in others where it is not convenient.

It is really an indefensible position, but as I said, I can understand where it comes from.

Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Meldinoor, posted 12-03-2010 11:12 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Meldinoor, posted 12-04-2010 12:57 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Meldinoor, posted 12-04-2010 1:09 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2010 1:50 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 12-04-2010 10:59 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 79 of 160 (594610)
12-04-2010 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Bolder-dash
12-04-2010 12:36 AM


Re: Huh?????
Bolder-dash writes:

What you are trying to call evidence for anything is actually just speculation.

Why is the existence of physical life not evidence that there could be more physical life? Obviously it's not proof that there's life out there. All it says is that there could be life out there. If life is possible here, even under inhospitable terrestrial conditions, obviously it would be possible in other places under identical conditions.

Bolder-dash writes:

First you can speculate that abiogenesis is possible without having the slightest bit of evidence that it is. What makes you think this is even possible?

Even if I didn't think there was a good explanation for how life could have begun by natural means, and even if I then took the enormous leap of faith to believe in a completely unevidenced meta-physical creator, that still would not be a case against extra-terrestrial life. Surely a creator not bound by physical laws could have created life wherever he wanted, throughout the cosmos. With magic, suddenly life becomes even more probable, and even more likely to be found elsewhere.

I'm surprised that you'd limit a vast creative intelligence, capable of creating the universe, to creating life on a single planet. No matter what my position on the existence of magical creators (I'm an agnostic by the way), the evidence at hand would still suggest that life is probably out there.

Bolder-dash writes:

Anything other than your faith?

What faith?

Bolder-dash writes:

Trying to make an argument that there is more evidence for alien life than for a force that created the cosmos, that created gravity, and energy, and atomic forces, and heat and cold and thermo dynamics....just is not a very strong argument

First you'd have to show why these things necessarily had to be created. Gravity is extremely simple. As are energy, atomic forces, heat, cold and thermo dynamics. All of these are the outcomes of some extremely simple properties of the universe. Heat and cold are merely differences in potential and kinetic energies between particles (I think), and the laws of thermodynamics were created by people to describe how heat behaves.

There's no need to postulate a creator until there's at least some reason to assume anything had to be created.

Bolder-dash writes:

In order to believe that you have to believe that all of the forces of the universe just poofed out by arbitrary chaos. That's a big stretch.

Not as big a stretch as postulating the existence of an even more complex meta-physical being. (By the way, I don't believe that everything was "poofed" out of "arbitrary chaos")

Bolder-dash writes:

It is an argument that can only be made by someone who WANTS a particular outcome.

I would be fine with an Intelligent Creator if I had any evidence whatsoever to believe in one. After all, I believed in one my whole life, up until a little while ago.

Bolder-dash writes:

Why is your speculation that it 'must be' valid only in this instance and not in others where it is not convenient.

But I'm not making any exceptions. If there were evidence of meta-physical beings on earth, and if they were shown to be capable of creating and altering the universe, then I should have less reservations about believing in one.

Bolder-dash writes:

It is really an indefensible position, but as I said, I can understand where it comes from.

Really? From agnosticism? Do explain.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 12:36 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 80 of 160 (594612)
12-04-2010 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Bolder-dash
12-04-2010 12:36 AM


Re: Huh?????
Alright, let me just emphasize one point from my last post.

Let's pretend I agree with you. There's a creator, he created the whole universe, including life on earth. I'll give you that for the sake of argument.

I would still say this implies that there's life elsewhere. Obviously, said creator created this planet with the intent of later putting life on it. We can also see numerous other planets out there that He/She/It must have created. Ergo, it's a reasonable conclusion that the creator put them there for a reason, and reasonable to suggest that since He/She/It put life on this planet, that He/She/It had similar intentions for the billions of other planets out there.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 12:36 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 1:24 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1162 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 81 of 160 (594615)
12-04-2010 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Meldinoor
12-04-2010 1:09 AM


Re: Huh?????
I have not even hinted that I don't believe in the possibility of life on other planets.

Have other evolutionists on this sited suggested that I have? Certainly. Just more spin or projecting of their paranoia I guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Meldinoor, posted 12-04-2010 1:09 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Meldinoor, posted 12-04-2010 1:29 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2010 1:46 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 82 of 160 (594616)
12-04-2010 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Bolder-dash
12-04-2010 1:24 AM


Re: Huh?????
Well do you?! I think it's common practice on this forum to put forth one's own opinion when one poses a new topic. I'm surprised that admin didn't make you outline your own position on this question before promoting the topic.

Once you've put forth your own estimate on the probability of life on other planets and justified it, THEN we can compare who the evidence most strongly supports.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 1:24 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 1:57 AM Meldinoor has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 83 of 160 (594617)
12-04-2010 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Bolder-dash
12-04-2010 1:24 AM


Re: Huh?????
I have not even hinted that I don't believe in the possibility of life on other planets.

Have other evolutionists on this sited suggested that I have? Certainly. Just more spin or projecting of their paranoia I guess.

You are a funny little man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 1:24 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 84 of 160 (594618)
12-04-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Bolder-dash
12-04-2010 12:36 AM


Re: Huh?????
What you are trying to call evidence for anything is actually just speculation. First you can speculate that abiogenesis is possible without having the slightest bit of evidence that it is. What makes you think this is even possible? Anything other than your faith?

The fact that life exists and that it used not to exist seems to be inarguable proof that at some point life began to exist.

I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of your thinking. Trying to make an argument that there is more evidence for alien life than for a force that created the cosmos, that created gravity, and energy, and atomic forces, and heat and cold and thermo dynamics....just is not a very strong argument. In order to believe that you have to believe that all of the forces of the universe just poofed out by arbitrary chaos. That's a big stretch. It is an argument that can only be made by someone who WANTS a particular outcome.

Actually, it's an argument that can only be made by the imaginary people who live in your head.

It is really an indefensible position ...

Yeah. All the stuff that you make up in your head is indefensible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 12:36 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1162 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 85 of 160 (594620)
12-04-2010 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Meldinoor
12-04-2010 1:29 AM


Re: Huh?????
Well, I am pretty agnostic about it I have to say. I can see plenty of evidence for a creating force behind the cosmos, and can see absolutely none for life elsewhere. I don't believe there are tigers living at the bottom of the ocean, just because I have seen tigers elsewhere. I think that is flimsy rationale. Do I think that there are cotton candy machines on Pluto just because there are cotton candy machines here. Nope.

Do I doubt the possibility of life elsewhere. I wouldn't say that. Would it affect my believes in other things. Also no. I guess that is about as agnostic on the subject as it gets.

Do I think that gravity is there just because it happens to be there. Heck no. Not anymore than if I were to suddenly see a great river of peppermint candy come dripping down from the sky in front of my eyes and think, hm, I guess the laws of nature just changed to suddenly include spontaneous rivers of peppermint candy floating in the sky. I don't attribute the cause of anything to nothingness (maybe we should change the wording to the "nothingness of nature", because laws of nature insinuate a set of instructions or rules of which things follow, and nothing doesn't create instructions in my experience) .

Regards


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Meldinoor, posted 12-04-2010 1:29 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2010 2:02 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 87 by Meldinoor, posted 12-04-2010 2:11 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 86 of 160 (594621)
12-04-2010 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Bolder-dash
12-04-2010 1:57 AM


Re: Huh?????
Is there any subject that you can't turn into an excuse to recite creationist gibberish?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 1:57 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 87 of 160 (594622)
12-04-2010 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Bolder-dash
12-04-2010 1:57 AM


Re: Huh?????
Bolder-dash writes:

I don't believe there are tigers living at the bottom of the ocean, just because I have seen tigers elsewhere.

That's an obvious straw-man, Bolder-dash. Tigers could not possibly live at the bottom of the sea, because they would drown. Neither was I suggesting that life exists anywhere where it could not exist, as in my example with the sun.

Similarly, cotton-candy machines are only built by humans, for humans, and therefore they can't exist on Pluto. I also strongly doubt that there's life on Pluto, because the environment would probably not be conducive for any kind of life. When I say that there could be life out there, I'm not saying it could be everywhere. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Bolder-dash writes:

Do I think that gravity is there just because it happens to be there?

And what would be there instead? What explanation for the origin of gravity do you have that could not easily be dismissed in the same way? Do you think God is there just because he happens to be there? If yes, why is God more probable than gravity? If no, where did God come from?

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 1:57 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 88 of 160 (594642)
12-04-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
12-03-2010 10:36 PM


Re: Huh?????
BD writes:

The universe is either chaos or ordered.

The universe should be described as both ordered and chaotic, as they are not mutually exclusive in scientific parlance.

BD writes:

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.

But that would be incorrect.
I think that you are knowingly conflating the common definition of chaos with the scientific definition of chaos which is:
quote:
Chaotic systems consequently appear disordered and random. However, they are actually deterministic systems governed by physical or mathematical laws, and so are completely predictable given perfect knowledge of the initial conditions.

BD writes:

Order could be described as structure, as consistency, as form, as organization, as observable, verifiable forms of meaning.

It could be described as "verifiable forms of meaning" but that would be incorrect.
But I suspect that you are intentionally mis-using the word 'order', when you actually want to use the word 'design'.

BD writes:

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.

From my 'observable experience' I know that order is not reliant on intelligence.
But again I suspect that you are intentionally mis-using the word 'order', when you actually want to use the word 'design'.

BD writes:

Our universe appears to have order based on our observations, therefore it is more likely to be derived from an intelligent source.

This conclusion is completely undermined by its false premises.

BD writes:

God is the name people give to an intelligent source, therefore a God is likely.

quote:
Allah is the name people give to an intelligent source, therefore Allah is likely.
Thor is the name people give to an intelligent source, therefore Thor is likely.
Human is the name people give to an intelligent source, therefore a human is likely.
Lassie is the name people give to an intelligent source, therefore Lassie is likely.
You have ended up doing nothing more than reason that intelligence possibly exists.

BD writes:

Thank you for showing me the way Panda! You are indeed enlightened.

That is a non-sequitur.
Even your insults are illogical.

Edited by Panda, : typos


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 1:26 PM Panda has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13641
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 89 of 160 (594653)
12-04-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Bolder-dash
12-04-2010 12:36 AM


Re: Huh?????
Bolder-dash writes:

What you are trying to call evidence for anything is actually just speculation. First you can speculate that abiogenesis is possible without having the slightest bit of evidence that it is. What makes you think this is even possible?


You seem to be confusing science with history.

We don't have evidence of the exact pathway by which abiogenesis occurred just like we don't have inch-by-inch evidence of the route that Lewis and Clark took to the Pacific Ocean. But it isn't speculation to say that it's possible to reach the Pacific Ocean.

The existence of the Eiffel Tower is evidence of the possibility of building a 900-foot tower, even if we don't know the exact order in which the parts were assembled. Similarly, the existence of complex molecules is evidence of the possibility of making complex molecules, even if we don't know the exact pathway by which they originally did assemble. The fact that living organisms can assemble complex molecules out of simple components is further evidence that the necessary conditions do exist.

We can reasonably conclude - not speculate - that water has the same freeze/thaw/evaporate/condense behaviour on other planets as it does on earth. We can similarly conclude that other chemicals, the constituents of life, have the same behaviour on other planets as they do on earth. Hence, it is inevitable that abiogenesis will happen, given the appropriate conditions. And considering the size of the universe, it seems quite likely that those conditions do arise from time to time in one place or another.

Edited by ringo, : Changed "biogenesis" to "abiogenesis". Freudian slip?


"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 12:36 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-04-2010 1:36 PM ringo has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1162 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 90 of 160 (594661)
12-04-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Panda
12-04-2010 8:16 AM


Re: Huh?????
Sorry no hijacking of my words meanings. let me make it simple:

cha·os

–noun
1.
a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.
2.
any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases.
3.
the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaos

When it me choosing the words I get to decide what their meanings are. In most cases I will use the actual meaning of the word!

So which does the world appear more like to you-order or chaos?

Note: If there are people using the word Lassie to mean the creator of an organized universe, then yes, it is likely* that Lassie exists.

*Likely being determined by our observation of known ordered items, and the experience of them overwhelmingly existing by means of a created process based on intelligent or logical input as opposed to a lack of input or influence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 12-04-2010 8:16 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 12-04-2010 1:33 PM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 99 by Panda, posted 12-04-2010 2:28 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017