have they found anything? [Archive] - Page 2

JoeTheJuggler

3rd January 2009, 12:17 PM

That assumes that in a million years a civilsation will have technology to supercede the lightspeed limit (it's not just a good idea, it's the law!). This is by no means assured, and in fact by our current understanding it seems to be pretty much impossible in principle.
Yes. Besides that, I'm pretty sure the SETI question is about a search for a civilization like ours--that is one that uses radio communication.

ETA: If the Q Continuum exists, he'll have to make himself known to us!

We surely would have received at least a glimpse, or clue of any other life in the vicinity of our solar system had it been there. After all, we have had radio for close on to 200 years. The speed of light limit would not impede a civilization a million years ahead of us.
Well not "any other life"--surely you mean any other radio-using civilization that started using radio in time for us to have received a signal in the past 30 years.

Yes, I agree that there is probably no radio-using civilization in our immediate neighborhood within the last 30 years. Since we've only been using radio communication for a teeny tiny fraction of the time life has existed on Earth, I'd point out that our SETI results so far is a very small dataset. There's no way you can jump from that to "the Earth is unique in the universe" or even "the Earth is unique in our galaxy".

NOVA just released a program on Mars exploration where at least two life science types think the possibility of life still on Mars ranges from poor to possible, and a couple of others think there may well have once been life there 3 billion plus years ago.
I saw that. It's very exciting.

I don't get how amb can use the possibility that 2 planets in our solar system can sustain life somehow argues that the Earth is unique. It seems to me that it means life arises darn near everywhere it is possible. (And what if we someday find something in the possible under-ice water oceans on Europa?)

amb

4th January 2009, 06:00 AM

JoeTheJuggler

5th January 2009, 03:46 PM

What is meant by the two planet theory is that if one or the other somehow evolved life
it could have migrated from one to the other by meteorites from mars to earth.
Perhaps life originated on mars and was transported here by an asteroid hitting mars and a chunk of rock could have been blown off the surface by the impact and seeded earth while sterilising Mars.
The chances of two relatively close rocky planets at approximately the habitual range for life to survive gives the solar system a better chance of life surviving a catastrophe.

Yes, I understand this speculation. (It's not very parsimonious to suppose that abiogenesis happened on Mars but not on Earth.)

However, if both Mars and Earth can sustain life, it hardly makes a strong argument that life is rare or that what we've got on Earth is unique in the universe when it isn't even unique in our tiny little solar system.

Instead, it broadens considerably the "sweet spot" orbit.

amb

6th January 2009, 12:18 AM

JoeTheJuggler

6th January 2009, 08:57 AM

Aren't we discussing animal life? I've stated that microbial life is more than likely widespread throughout the universe. In fact I'm sure that one day life [microbial, or very primitive] will be found on Europa which has been observed to have frozen oceans on the surface but liquid under the ice mantle.

So far, in our only known sample of life, microbial life evolved into an incredibly rich diversity of life. So the existence of life is related to the existence of higher life forms.

I'd agree that we don't know how frequently and under what conditions we higher life forms evolve. So far, we're one for one. At any rate, there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that the Earth is unique.

Also, the 'sweet spot' is what this discussion is all about.
Yes I know. That's why I pointed out that finding two planets in our solar system alone that fall in the sweet spot most definitely does not argue that the Earth is unique in the universe or even in the galaxy.

How common are rocky planets orbiting their star at the sweet spot for animal life to evolve? And it has to do so for at least since the age of the Earth's origin.
And so far, whenever we develop technology to find extrasolar planets of a certain mass (or orientation relative to their star and our eyes, or whatever) we have found them in abundance. I admit, there's plenty we don't know, but our ignorance does not in any way suggest that the Earth is unique.

In that past, everytime we thought "we" were unique somehow, it almost always turned out to be wrong.

The number of stars out there is truly astronomical. Even if some particular necessary configuration is rare, it will surely exist many times.

amb

7th January 2009, 02:11 AM

JoeTheJuggler

9th January 2009, 07:35 AM

No one is denying that fact. What I'm
saying is that Earth-like planets with just the right conditions are not common but rare. Rare means , probably millions of Earths scattered throughout the cosmos. But don't expect one next door.

I agree there's no reason to suspect on is next door (the lack of a finding from SETI), but I don't think that even makes them "rare".

As I've been saying, terms like "rare" and "common" are relative terms. 1 in a million would mean there are thousands of them in our galaxy alone.

I contend that intelligence could be relatively common yet still rare enough (spread out in space and time enough) that any one is not likely ever to encounter another.

Most importantly, though, what do you base the assertion that they're rare on? Right now, we don't know. Earlier, I linked a study of extra solar planets that estimates "superearths" (I think up to a mass of like 5 to 10 times that of the Earth) are as "common" as one per every 3 single stars.

So far, pretty much any time we've had the technology to find extrasolar planets of a given mass (and orientation relative to us), we've found them in abundance.

But you agree now that the Earth is not likely to be unique in the universe or even in the galaxy?

amb

9th January 2009, 10:52 PM

Earth may be unique in our part of the quadrant. May be so even in the whole galaxy. When you consider the enormous number of coincidences that occurred here to produce animal life.
And of the millions of lifeforms that developed here, only one has acquired enough intelligence to even wonder about these questions.
For example. Earth has a large moon to stabilize it's orbit. Gravity is just right. The Earth has tectonic plates, a large gas world that acts like a vacuum cleaner in attracting huge asteroids that otherwise could hit the Earth a lot more frequently, thereby destroying all animal life, we are at just the right distance from our sun to keep the water in a stable liquid condition making life possible. All this and many more reasons why the Earth may indeed be very rare, as far as our galaxy is concerned.

The above is a copy of an earlier post I made using a book titled Rare Earth as a source.

JoeTheJuggler

11th January 2009, 02:25 PM

Earth may be unique in our part of the quadrant. May be so even in the whole galaxy. When you consider the enormous number of coincidences that occurred here to produce animal life.
I think you're looking at it backwards. You're almost looking at it the same way creationists making the "finely-tuned universe" look at it. The conditions didn't produce animal life. Life evolved to adapt to conditions.

There's no reason to think the conditions on Earth are unique in the galaxy. There's also no reason to think that the very specific conditions on Earth are necessary for the evolution of beings with intelligence like ours. I'm not sure what "our part of the quadrant" means, but I do agree that there has probably been no other radio-using civilization within 30 or so light years of us in very recent years. That's a far cry from saying intelligence like ours is unique.

JoeTheJuggler

11th January 2009, 02:39 PM

I should add, that I agree it's true that the Earth "may be" unique, but it's much more likely not to be. Again, every time we've thought we were in a special situation, we were proven to be wrong.

The stuff in Rare Earth is just speculation. Take the example of large meteors striking the planet. Here, it seems we get one that really sort of hits the evolutionary "reset" button about every 50 million years or so. You say that if we had more frequent strikes intelligence wouldn't be able to evolve. It could well be the exact opposite. That more frequent strikes resets things more often and gives you more chances at selecting a hi-tech intelligence.

The point is we don't know.

As I've been saying, words like "rare" and "commonplace" are strictly relative terms. (Is "one in a million" or even "one in a billion" rare or commonplace?) "Unique" is a different thing. It means we're the only intelligence ever. (I do appreciate that you've scaled that back from the universe to the galaxy though.)

That seems like the same kind of extremely biased thinking that led us to think the Earth was the center of the universe. Really. . .billions of billions of stars and tens of billions of years' time is a lot of chances.

davefoc

11th January 2009, 07:03 PM

I always thought the idea of transmitting a list of prime numbers would be an easy way of saying "We're here, and here's the way we think." It would also be different enough from any natural source of radiation to leave little doubt that it's an artificial or intentional signal.

That sounds reasonable. It is a bit of a problem because one would like to send the shortest pulses possible to maximize the distance for the power invested and not very many of them because there are a lot of stars where one might like to aim the transmissions and one might need to hit targets repetitively for years to maximize the chances of hitting a target that was capable of hitting the signal that you were transmitting.

Frank Drake, the guy of Drake's equation, where he expressed somewhat more optimism than he had previously about the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/life.html

Of course, Drake knows massively more about this stuff than I do, but I'm in amb's camp on this. I think the number of technologically capable civilizations is probably very small and the possibility that any of them is near enough to us to communicate with is even smaller.

I will say this of all the miscellaneous subjects that I've followed and pontificated on in this forum there was never one that it was less likely to be resolved if actual facts became available. The number of planets with sentient life in the galaxy might be fairly high or extremely small. I doubt that any human being for as long as the species exists will ever know the truth about that.

amb

12th January 2009, 12:24 AM

American cosmologist Frank Tippler believes that if extraterrestials exist, they should already be here. ''Since they are obviously not, they do not exist,'' he says. He does not deny the possibility that primitive life is widespread in the universe, but believes that the development of intelligence is vastly improbable. It has happened only once since the B/B. We are totally alone, he says.
Tippler's argument assumes that interstellar travel by self-replicating space probes is possible. If intelligent life were common, it's emergence should have had a head start on planets around stars that are billions of years older than our Sun.
At least one alien civilisation would have developed self-reproducing space probes and launched them into space.
Travelling at 90% of the speed of light an advanced technology could reach the nearest star in less than five years, depending where they are in the universe. If it takes 100 years to make a copy of itself, then the average speed at which all the probes would spread would be about 1/25 of the speed of light. At this speed, Tippler argues, the probes would spread throughout the galaxy within 10 million years.
But we have no evidence of these probes on Earth. Their absence shows the absence of aliens. That's the logic of Frank Tippler, a respected scientist, and me, a layman.

RecoveringYuppy

12th January 2009, 05:45 AM

@amb. Two words: "Fermi Paradox"

amb

13th January 2009, 12:27 AM

Exactly. ''If their there, why aren't they here.''

JoeTheJuggler

13th January 2009, 10:17 AM

Of course, Drake knows massively more about this stuff than I do, but I'm in amb's camp on this. I think the number of technologically capable civilizations is probably very small and the possibility that any of them is near enough to us to communicate with is even smaller.

amb says the Earth is unique, which is very different than saying the number is relatively small.

My position is that terms like "rare" and "commonplace" are relative when you're dealing with astronomical sizes and numbers of things.

We are almost certainly not unique.

A technological civilization like ours could arise as frequently as something like 1 in every million stars, meaning our galaxy will have had tens of thousands of such civilizations, but they could still be so spread out in space and time that none of them would ever encounter another.

JoeTheJuggler

13th January 2009, 10:22 AM

Exactly. ''If their there, why aren't they here.''

Because stuff is so spread out in space and time that it could be unlikely for any two to encounter each other.

I think people are assuming we'll find a way to travel faster than light (or even very close to it) when they're claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

SETI has only ruled out the nearest stars in about a 30 year period. We could have "just missed" a relatively nearby civilization whose demise happened a mere 10 million years ago.

JoeTheJuggler

13th January 2009, 10:39 AM

Tippler's argument assumes that interstellar travel by self-replicating space probes is possible. If intelligent life were common, it's emergence should have had a head start on planets around stars that are billions of years older than our Sun.
At least one alien civilisation would have developed self-reproducing space probes and launched them into space.
Travelling at 90% of the speed of light an advanced technology could reach the nearest star in less than five years, depending where they are in the universe. If it takes 100 years to make a copy of itself, then the average speed at which all the probes would spread would be about 1/25 of the speed of light. At this speed, Tippler argues, the probes would spread throughout the galaxy within 10 million years.
And there's still billions and billions of stars to aim at, and really really vast distances.

As I mentioned, this assumed technology that doesn't exist and may not be possible. (We simply don't know.)

You're also assuming that such an advanced technological civilization will be motivated to send out these things. (Why would they? They'd all be one-way machines. Or are these civilizations naturally extremely long-term thinkers--unlike us?)

These calculations assume none of these machines would ever fail. (There's nothing in space that could harm a probe, right?)

And you're still leaving time out of considerations. What if one such probe passed through or near our solar system 1 million years ago.

But we have no evidence of these probes on Earth. Their absence shows the absence of aliens. That's the logic of Frank Tippler, a respected scientist, and me, a layman.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Or rather, in this case, the absence of self-replicating alien probes is not evidence of the absence of ET intelligence.

There's no reason to suppose conditions on Earth are unique in the universe or even in the galaxy. How rare is, as davefoc says, a question that will probably never be answered.

davefoc

13th January 2009, 10:46 AM

amb says the Earth is unique, which is very different than saying the number is relatively small.

My position is that terms like "rare" and "commonplace" are relative when you're dealing with astronomical sizes and numbers of things.

We are almost certainly not unique.

A technological civilization like ours could arise as frequently as something like 1 in every million stars, meaning our galaxy will have had tens of thousands of such civilizations, but they could still be so spread out in space and time that none of them would ever encounter another.

Drake's original parameters for his equation put the number of technological civilizations at 10 in our galaxy at the current time, I believe. If it's as few as ten it is wildly unlikely that we are near enough to any of them to detect them. Wikipedia puts the number at 2.3 based on current estimates for the parameters. I would call 10 rare and 2.3 more rare.

If Amb is saying that a technological civilization at about our level of technology or higher is unique in the galaxy I think it's more likely than not he's wrong.

JoeTheJuggler

13th January 2009, 11:08 AM

Drake's original parameters for his equation put the number of technological civilizations at 10 in our galaxy at the current time, I believe. If it's as few as ten it is wildly unlikely that we are near enough to any of them to detect them. Wikipedia puts the number at 2.3 based on current estimates for the parameters. I would call 10 rare and 2.3 more rare.
My point is that even if the number is much higher than those, it would still be unlikely for any two such civilizations ever to encounter one another.
ETA: I note that this figure is for those existing right now. If we take into account the life span of stars or the life span of the galaxy/universe then the numbers would be MUCH higher.

I think what Drake said in the article you linked above is more on target. We really shouldn't think so narrowly that life requires a near-duplicate of the Earth. There are many other scenarios that might give rise to conditions conducive to life.

Since we don't know, we should be careful not to put on the blinders.

davefoc

13th January 2009, 03:14 PM

All reasonable JTJ,
As to the reason for the Fermi paradox and tipplers ideas don't rule out other civilizations: I suspect that civilizations blow themselves up before the appropriate technology for any kind of galaxy seeding/visiting goes on either because the technology is not possible or because civilizations just don't develop an inclination to invest the resources in that stuff before they blow themselves up.

My guess is that part of the nature of the development of all sentient entities is some penchant for violence and eventually this potential for violence is unleashed in such a way that the civilization is destroyed.

When I had that thought I was a little depressed about it for a day or so. Now, I just throw it on the stack heap of other troubling notions that I don't worry about.

At one point I thought that there might be some intergalactic civilizations around the center of our galaxy because the stars are so much closer. But now it looks like that idea has been shot down because as you get closer to the galaxy center the radiation levels go way up and sentient life seems unlikely at the elevated levels.

arthwollipot

13th January 2009, 07:36 PM

Wait - Tipler's a respected scientist now? I was under the impression that he was generally regarded as a bit of a kook.

amb

14th January 2009, 12:14 AM

So was Andrew Gold of whom renowned physicist Freeman Dyson said. ''Gold's theories are always original, always brilliant, usually controversial-and usually right.''
He was commenting on Gold's theory that contradicts the conventional wisdom that petroleum and natural gas are fossil fuels. On the contrary, says Gold, these resources are constantly being manufactured deep in the Earth by natural processes from the initial materials that formed the Earth. No one has as yet proved Gold was wrong.
The same with this discussion.
The likelihood of the universe been full of life in most galaxies is not in dispute. What is in dispute is animal and intelligent life.

I said before, extremophiles life has been found in the most extreme places on Earth including Antarctica, in volcanos and deep sea vents.
Our own solar system may be brimming with such microbes.
It remains to be seen if there are other Earths out there. I think intelligence is not a given in the scheme of things.
Imagine a planet that has a few of the attributes of the Earth, but has scorching temperature like in the Gobi or Sahara desert. Would intelligence still evolve on such a place? Or the extremes of Antarctica?
Unless a rocky planet is positioned just at the right distance from a similar star as Sol, then it needs a large moon, a giant gas world like we have to act as a magnet for straying giant asteroids, life, animal life that is, is likely to be very rare.
We may well be unique in this part of the galaxy. After all, how many times can you throw a set of sixes in a game of chess?

JoeTheJuggler

14th January 2009, 09:04 PM

Unless a rocky planet is positioned just at the right distance from a similar star as Sol, then it needs a large moon, a giant gas world like we have to act as a magnet for straying giant asteroids, life, animal life that is, is likely to be very rare.
And all of this is just pure speculation.

I already showed that your requirement for no more frequent big meteor strikes than the Earth has had (roughly every 50 million years) could work out to be just the opposite. If you reset the ecosystem more frequently, you might get more chances of a intelligent life form. (Do you suppose if the one that ended the reign of the dinos hadn't happened, that dinos would have become a radio-technology using civilization? If not, it seems that hitting the old "reset" button for a planet's ecosystems might be a good thing.)

You just don't know which of those things are absolute requirements and which aren't.

We may well be unique in this part of the galaxy. After all, how many times can you throw a set of sixes in a game of chess?
None. But if you roll a pair of dice billions and billions of times, you're guaranteed a great many "boxcars".

Again: 100 billion stars in our galaxy and 100s of billions of galaxies in the universe, and some 14 billion years so far since the Big Bang.

JoeTheJuggler

14th January 2009, 09:10 PM

As to the reason for the Fermi paradox and tipplers ideas don't rule out other civilizations: I suspect that civilizations blow themselves up before the appropriate technology for any kind of galaxy seeding/visiting goes on either because the technology is not possible or because civilizations just don't develop an inclination to invest the resources in that stuff before they blow themselves up.

My guess is that part of the nature of the development of all sentient entities is some penchant for violence and eventually this potential for violence is unleashed in such a way that the civilization is destroyed.

If you want to get more optimistic, it could just be that the self-replicating, near-lightspeed probes have problems that makes them not feasible (aside from a civilization having no good reason to make them). Presumably, they're AIs. So if they're programmed to reproduce and to travel elsewhere, it could be that they decide reproduce is the more important goal, and end up fighting amongst themselves over resources near their "creator" and end up evolving into their own sentient "life" form or destroying each other.

Or it could be that near-lightspeed isn't practically possible, or that self-replicating machines tend to break down and stop replicating (and "die" off) within a few thousand years.

But you're right. We have no reason to assume that intelligent civilizations last particularly long---since the only one we know about has only been around so far for a geological eyeblink (which is less than an astronomical eyeblink). There's no reason to assume that any technical feat that is even possible will necessarily be possible to attain.

JoeTheJuggler

14th January 2009, 09:24 PM

Our own solar system may be brimming with such microbes.
It remains to be seen if there are other Earths out there. I think intelligence is not a given in the scheme of things.
I'm certainly not claiming intelligence is a given. I just think it's presumptuous to claim that we're unique. (And it's presumptuous to claim that a large moon is prerequisite and all the rest.)

So far, in our only sample we're one for one on microbial life evolving into animals (or higher forms, or whatever). As Stephen Jay Gould points, while there's no directionality in evolution, there is a "left wall". You can't get any simpler than the simplest archaebacteria. As diversity increases, you get complexity (even though the mode stays at the simplest forms).

I just don't buy arguments that say if ET intelligence exists in our galaxy, we'd have known about it by now. We've only searched an infinitesimally small part (in time and space) of the cosmic haystack for that needle (or those needles).

I really agree with the Sagan quote I offered earlier.

amb

15th January 2009, 01:06 AM

DNA is an extremely complex molecule with a very small chance of occurring on it's own.
That it has accrued at least once because we are here discussing it doesn't mean it happens willy nilly. But because of the trillions of stars in the universe, it's bound to have happened at some point elsewhere.
Thus, the theory of a 'Rare Earth.'
I love Sagan's work, and have read a few of his books. But I believe he was a little too optimistic in his belief that intelligent life is flourishing in the universe.

JoeTheJuggler

15th January 2009, 09:35 AM

DNA is an extremely complex molecule with a very small chance of occurring on it's own.
How do you know the chances of DNA occurring on its own? (By the way, how else does it occur?)

So I guess you've changed your mind about microbial life being very common even in our own solar system then.

That it has accrued at least once because we are here discussing it doesn't mean it happens willy nilly.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I think you're again saying that the opposite of "we are unique" is "intelligent life is ubiquitous". I don't believe either one of those is true.

But because of the trillions of stars in the universe, it's bound to have happened at some point elsewhere.
Yes. Or perhaps another replicating molecule capable of playing the same role as DNA in our life. Or. . maybe something completely different that we haven't yet even imagined.

Thus, the theory of a 'Rare Earth.' No. The theory of "Rare Earth" as you've described it (with the list of requirements) assumes we have a lot more certain knowledge than we actually have. The business about a large moon or a Mars-like planet or some of these other conditions being necessary for life and even animal life is pure conjecture.

I love Sagan's work, and have read a few of his books. But I believe he was a little too optimistic in his belief that intelligent life is flourishing in the universe.
He was very clear that belief is irrelevant. He said, we simply don't know. He did say it would be surprising if, in the vastness of space and time, the Earth is unique. But to date, we have no evidence of any ET intelligence or life.

About all we can say is that we're reasonably certain that no radio-using ET intelligence exists in our near neighborhood in recent years. Beyond that, it's all speculation.

It sounds like you're backing off of the "unique" claim to a claim that life and intelligence may be "rare".

I would agree, but with the caveat that "rare" is a relative term.

Something that is "rare" in the universe might still occur tens, hundreds or thousands of times in our galaxy alone. Even so, something as "commonplace" as occurring thousands of times over the expanse in time and space of our galaxy could still be spread out enough as to never encounter another.

amb

16th January 2009, 12:04 AM

I have always stated that life, animal life that is, is extremely rare. I have said that perhaps we could well be unique in our galaxy, not the whole cosmos.
That would be a foolish statement as there are bound to be other Earths in this almost infinite universe that is still expanding at the speed of light.
Are we an accident, or are we part of an ordered universe that's life friendly, with all it's implications. Either a 'designer,' or a multiverse of universes, and with this one out of billions been just right for the evolution of animal life.
You only have one choice.

JoeTheJuggler

16th January 2009, 10:42 AM

I have always stated that life, animal life that is, is extremely rare. I have said that perhaps we could well be unique in our galaxy, not the whole cosmos.
Fair enough.

That would be a foolish statement as there are bound to be other Earths in this almost infinite universe that is still expanding at the speed of light.
I agree, but I'd go further and say it's also a foolish statement to make even limited to a galaxy of 100 billion stars and a billions of years' time span.

Are we an accident, or are we part of an ordered universe that's life friendly, with all it's implications. Either a 'designer,' or a multiverse of universes, and with this one out of billions been just right for the evolution of animal life.
You only have one choice.
I don't understand what you're saying. It sounds again like you're using that odd backward "fine-tuner" thinking. Life evolved to fit conditions that exist. We know with 100% certainty that conditions that are "friendly" to life (and animal life) exist in our universe (and indeed, in our galaxy).

I see no compelling reason to think such conditions could only occur once (or even once in this galaxy).

The stuff about "accident" and "designer" and "multiverse of universes" sounds more like a theological or philosophical discussion. Neither a designer nor a multiverse is necessary to explain life in our universe or galaxy. Neither adds anything to the discussion of ET intelligence.

davefoc

16th January 2009, 02:42 PM

If you want to get more optimistic, it could just be that the self-replicating, near-lightspeed probes have problems that makes them not feasible (aside from a civilization having no good reason to make them). ...

Yes, one thing that gets missed when discussions about how long it takes to get to nearby stars go on is that even without relavistic problems it may just be impossible to travel at speeds that are a significant fraction of the speed of light. It takes an enormous amount of energy to accelerate and decelerate the crafts (chemical rockets are a complete non-starter) and then once you're going that fast you better hope that you don't run into any grains of sand floating around out there, because the energy of the collision is likely to really mess up your whole craft. There also might be significantly more issues with radiation than is generally considered. Based on a Scientific American article a year or so ago it sounds like even the mission to Mars may not be possible because of the radiation.

JoeTheJuggler

16th January 2009, 06:34 PM

Yes, one thing that gets missed when discussions about how long it takes to get to nearby stars go on is that even without relavistic problems it may just be impossible to travel at speeds that are a significant fraction of the speed of light. It takes an enormous amount of energy to accelerate and decelerate the crafts (chemical rockets are a complete non-starter) and then once you're going that fast you better hope that you don't run into any grains of sand floating around out there, because the energy of the collision is likely to really mess up your whole craft. There also might be significantly more issues with radiation than is generally considered. Based on a Scientific American article a year or so ago it sounds like even the mission to Mars may not be possible because of the radiation.

Yes.

And if we're going to ignore all the problems that seem insurmountable to us now, then why not just go whole hog and posit super-technology that allows quick and easy intergalactic transportation?

Tippler says that if at least one other ET intelligence existed, and assuming self-replicating probes are possible, then these probes would be everywhere in the galaxy within 10 million years. They're not here, so ET intelligence doesn't exist. (Ignoring that we may have just missed a probe by a mere 1 million years one way or the other.)

Since the universe is a great deal older than that, why not just assume that intergalactic transportation of self-replicating probes is possible? So since they're not here, it "proves" we're unique and alone in the entire universe.

It's the same logic and the same kind of assumptions.

amb

18th January 2009, 12:05 AM

Still. The very beginning of life. How life started in the first place, still eludes astrophysicists. Whether it started here, or elsewhere and somehow transported here is the question that may well be answered in the near future. But for now, it's purely speculation. Does life happen often, or is this a once in a trillion chance. Even if life is found in our solar system, it will not answer this question as life could have been transported from nearby planets and moons on meteorites or comets ect.

JoeTheJuggler

18th January 2009, 09:48 AM

Still. The very beginning of life. How life started in the first place, still eludes astrophysicists.
That sounds like a question for biologists or at least chemists rather than astrophysicists.

In fact, we're far from clueless about abiogenesis.

We've seen that conditions on a young Earth recreated in labs have resulted in the formation of amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment). We know it's possible to make self-replicating molecules (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=life). It's not hard to come up with ways that a membrane could happen to form around such molecules. There aren't that many more intermediate steps we need to connect the dots. Once you've got something that replicates with some variation, selection starts to operate.

Whether it started here, or elsewhere and somehow transported here is the question that may well be answered in the near future. But for now, it's purely speculation. Does life happen often, or is this a once in a trillion chance. Even if life is found in our solar system, it will not answer this question as life could have been transported from nearby planets and moons on meteorites or comets ect.
I agree that it's pure speculation. I believe Occam's Razor favors the explanation of Earth life originating on EArth--at least given the current evidence.

Finding life elsewhere in the solar system also won't answer the question as to whether intelligent aliens engineered life in our solar system. The point is that these hypotheses aren't necessary (especially without evidence of extraterrestrial life in our solar system that is related to life on Earth), and there is at this point no evidence to support them.

You might be right, that life originated on Mars, for example, and spread to Earth. Right now, though, that hypothesis lacks parsimony compared to the hypothesis that abiogenesis happened on Earth.

But again, I agree, it's pure speculation. I hope to live long enough to have at least some of these questions answered.

Finding microbes on Mars that are positively related to Earth life would go a long way toward bolstering the transplanted-from-Mars notion. Finding microbes there that are clearly not related to Earth would go a long way toward falsifying that hypothesis.

Finding fossilized bacteria in the meteorites of Martian origin would've bolstered the theory. That they weren't there sure doesn't help it. (In a similar way, if we didn't find planets when we had the technology to detect them of a given mass, it wouldn't help the idea that planet formation is relatively commonplace.)

amb

19th January 2009, 12:57 AM

I believe planet formation is quite common. But do they get all the conditions that encourages animal life to evolve? Like the right star, the right distance from their star, [too close and the same face would face the sun as does our moon] tectonic plates, an abundance of liquid water, a large moon to stabilize it's orbit and tilt to give a change of temperatures, [ no moon, no seasons] I don't believe animal life would survive long in extreme conditions such as Mars, Venus.
We have an example right here on Earth. There's very little life in the Sahara desert, Gobi desert, Antartica. What life there is there evolved elsewhere and then adapted to the conditions.

JoeTheJuggler

19th January 2009, 09:47 AM

I believe planet formation is quite common. But do they get all the conditions that encourages animal life to evolve?
No they don't.

Again I'm objecting to the claim that Earth is unique in the galaxy. I'm not claiming that life is ubiquitous. Has anyone claimed that all planets get "all the conditions that encourages animal life to evolve?"

Also, I don't think we know what all those conditions might be. The flaw in the rare Earth argument is claiming that we do.

JoeTheJuggler

19th January 2009, 09:55 AM

Like the right star, the right distance from their star, [too close and the same face would face the sun as does our moon] tectonic plates, an abundance of liquid water, a large moon to stabilize it's orbit and tilt to give a change of temperatures, [ no moon, no seasons]

This is the stuff I'm talking about. We don't know that these things are all required.

Seasons? I can tell you from where I sit, seasons aren't friendly to animal life!

As for tidally locked planets, the Drake article that Davefoc linked to earlier in this thread pointed out that the twilight zone on these planets might be just the place to look for life.

The point is that we just don't know. IN the absence of this knowledge, it is premature to think the Earth is unique.

JoeTheJuggler

19th January 2009, 10:10 AM

a large moon to stabilize it's [sic] orbit

Is there any evidence whatsoever that planets without large moons can have stable orbits?

It might be true that a large moon is necessary, but it also might not be. That's why this is mere speculation.

Even if they're necessary, is there any evidence that large moons are extremely rare (or, more to the point, that ours is unique in the galaxy)?

Here's a nifty image from NASA (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cfm) (posted by Woollery on another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4357731#post4357731)):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9574973c8a6aebf9.jpg

Even within that tiny area where we've detected planets, we're very limited on what kinds of planets we can detect. If you tried to draw it such that the size was limited to the area where we can detect 100% of the planets down to Earth-mass planets, then we're limited to our own solar system, which is too small to show as an area on this image.

So, just on the issue of the existence of large moons around earth-mass planets, it is presumptuous to think that ours is unique in the galaxy.

amb

20th January 2009, 03:09 AM

JoeTheJuggler

20th January 2009, 07:30 AM

Our star is around 30.000 light years from the center of the galaxy, which according to some astronomers is the Goldilocks area of any other Earth like planet. Any closer and the ultraviolet light would sterilize any planet. Any further out the elements is probably to low to form rocky planets as large as Earth with a solid/liquid core. Both attributes seem to be necessary to the development of animal life.

It is often said that the sun is a typical star, but this is not true.
95% of all stars are less massive than the sun.
Smaller stars habitual zone is located farther inward, meaning that any rocky planets would have to orbit much closer to get any warmth and allow the retention of liquid water, and locking the planet into a moon like orbit around it's star would cause one side to be forever dark while the other side forever day just like our moon and Mercury.
Imagine the temperatures of such a planet. Too severe for the evolution of animal life i suggest.

First, most of this is conjecture. It assumes that the only way to get higher life forms is an exact duplication of the conditions of the Earth. That's very limited thinking (and presumes that we know a helluva lot more than we actually do).

Second, even if more or less Earth conditions are required, there's no reason to think we are unique in the galaxy. The physical processes that resulted in the Earth are not forbidden elsewhere.

I'd like to quote Nobby Nobb's post from the other thread on this subject in its entirety because he said this very well:

Rare doesnt mean unique, but as time progresses, every day, Life becomes less likely.

Um...no. Quite the opposite in fact.

Listen, there was a time when Europeans thought that there couldn't possibly exist any other place other than Europe. Then the Far East and the New World were discovered.

There was a time when it was thought that Earth was the only planet in existence. Then it was discovered that some of the other lights out there are planets too.

As little as 20 years ago, it was thought that our solar system was the only one with planets. Then they discovered extrasolar planets.

As little as 5 years ago, it was thought that the rocky planets in our solar system were the only rocky planets there were. Then extrasolar rocky planets were discovered.

We have found water on Europa. Evidence of water on Mars. The chemical signature of water vapor on at least one extrasolar planet.

In direct opposition to your baseless claim, everyday we learn more about the universe, it seems to become more likely that there is life out there.

JoeTheJuggler

20th January 2009, 04:53 PM

I suppose I should respond to some of the specific speculations here. They're just speculation (and not knowledge), so the fact that I can speculate the opposite case is as meaningful.
Our star is around 30.000 light years from the center of the galaxy, which according to some astronomers is the Goldilocks area of any other Earth like planet. Any closer and the ultraviolet light would sterilize any planet.
Thicker atmosphere, stronger magnetic field or a form of life that tolerates (or even thrives on) UV.

Any further out the elements is probably to low to form rocky planets as large as Earth with a solid/liquid core.
There are plenty of stars farther our than we are. How much matter do you think it takes to make a rocky planet? (Far less than it takes to make a star.) There's plenty of matter.

Or do you mean something else by "the elements is probably to low"?

amb

20th January 2009, 11:31 PM

JoeTheJuggler

21st January 2009, 06:42 PM

I meant elements heavier than helium. Outside of the habitual orbits of stars too far from the center, the relative abundance of heavy elements is probably too low to form terrestrial planets as large as the Earth.

I thought that's what you meant. You're wrong, though. There's plenty of matter (including more than enough elements heavier than helium to make planets). A planet like the Earth represents only a relatively tiny amount of matter at the scale of the outer portion of the galaxy. Your claim is that there's not even enough matter to make one such planet. That's just over-the-top.

And again, even if your baseless assumption were true (that stars farther from the galactic center than Sol don't have any Earth-like planets), there are plenty of stars that aren't that far out, and you don't know for sure that earth-like planets are requisite for higher forms of life.

The problem with the claim that the Earth is unique in the galaxy is that it would require knowledge we don't have.

shadron

21st January 2009, 07:46 PM

I thought that's what you meant. You're wrong, though. There's plenty of matter (including more than enough elements heavier than helium to make planets). A planet like the Earth represents only a relatively tiny amount of matter at the scale of the outer portion of the galaxy. Your claim is that there's not even enough matter to make one such planet. That's just over-the-top.

Let's look at this galaxy: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051022.html . It is the Ring Galaxy (AM 0644-741) as visualized by HST. The ring is a series of very bright, young stars and star birthing areas (nebulae) which were ignited by a collision with another galaxy, as the shock wave passed from the point of pass-through outwards.

The ability of these areas to light up upon the passing of a pressure wave indicates how plentiful star-producing gas is in the outer arms of a normal spiral galaxy. All the galaxies that we can see within a half billion light years seem to have the same sort of cold gas - estimated to be about 3% heavy elements. If anything, the gas is more plentiful in the outer edges rather than at the central regions, where it has been depeleted by much star generation in the past (the same is true for whole elliptical galaxies).

JoeTheJuggler

21st January 2009, 11:30 PM

This is a total derail, but while we're on the subject of galaxies, there's a great distributed project to classifies tons of photos of galaxies at:
http://www.galaxyzoo.org/

ETA: Maybe not so far off topic. You sit and classify galaxies for a good half hour, and you get a much more gut-level sense of how many there are in the universe. Each one with tens of billions (or more) stars.

amb

22nd January 2009, 02:48 AM

I thought that's what you meant. You're wrong, though. There's plenty of matter (including more than enough elements heavier than helium to make planets). A planet like the Earth represents only a relatively tiny amount of matter at the scale of the outer portion of the galaxy. Your claim is that there's not even enough matter to make one such planet. That's just over-the-top.

And again, even if your baseless assumption were true (that stars farther from the galactic center than Sol don't have any Earth-like planets), there are plenty of stars that aren't that far out, and you don't know for sure that earth-like planets are requisite for higher forms of life.

The problem with the claim that the Earth is unique in the galaxy is that it would require knowledge we don't have.

Don't forget, they need to be as close as possible to Earth size. Too small, and they will have not enough gravity to hold on to liquid water. Too large, and the greater gravity would make any animal life impossible unless it's gigantic creatures able to withstand the enormous pull of gravity.

Naturally we are just speculating as we only have this planet as a model.
But when we look at the enormous number of coincidences that enabled life to evolve on this ''just right'' planet in a ''just right'' part of the galaxy, there can't be too many Earths out there with animal life. Let alone an intelligent species.
Why is it that out of the billion or so species of life here on Earth, only one has developed intelligence enough to construct a technological civilasation?
Does that not give the odds of around a billion to one that intelligence can evolve elsewhere?

JoeTheJuggler

22nd January 2009, 09:33 AM

Don't forget, they need to be as close as possible to Earth size. Too small, and they will have not enough gravity to hold on to liquid water. Too large, and the greater gravity would make any animal life impossible unless it's gigantic creatures able to withstand the enormous pull of gravity.
That's a mighty big "unless" there. The fact is, to claim that the Earth is unique, you would have to know for sure that higher life forms can't evolve on a smaller or larger planet, and that no other earth-size planets exist.

Why is it that out of the billion or so species of life here on Earth, only one has developed intelligence enough to construct a technological civilasation?
Does that not give the odds of around a billion to one that intelligence can evolve elsewhere?
Well that's just not true either. There are certainly other species with intelligence. Even other primates have tool use and some of the other things that we used to claim made humans unique. There's no reason to think that if we weren't here another species wouldn't have filled our niche. (I'm not claiming I know that for sure, but claiming that humans are sui generis is akin to claiming special creation when we know full well we're related to the rest of life on Earth.)

And I do think the kind of thinking behind the claim that humans are unique in the galaxy is the same kind of thinking that humans are fundamentally not animals, or that Europe was the only civilization, or that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Besides, what would that one to a billion (I think you said it backwards of what you intended) ratio mean? Another planet with complex life forms might have a billion or so species as well. In terms of the planet (over 4 billion years' time), using the only sample we have (the Earth) the ratio is one in one. If you want to keep the 1:1 billion figure, then you're talking about the sum total of species in the galaxy (rather than stars or planets). It doesn't help your case to look at it that way.

We still just don't know. There is no evidence of ET intelligence, but there is also no evidence to support the claim that we are unique in the galaxy.

amb

23rd January 2009, 01:17 AM

Apart from homo sapiens, I have yet to see any other species on this planet with anything like a child of two or three years of age's intelligence.
Our closet's relative the Chimps, show an intelligence of a two or three year old homo sapien. Give them another million years to evolve, I still doubt they will ever reach our dumbest of people's brain power.
What if we are one the first of civilisations to emerge in the universe? And it will be homo sapiens that will colonise the cosmos in the next million years or so?
The universe has evolved to a point where it's become self-aware, can look back at itself, work out how it came about through us. We are the next step in the universe's evolution: consciousness.
Intriguing speculation you must admit. I love it. My one regret, I may not live long enough to see mankind take that extra step into the cosmos.

JoeTheJuggler

23rd January 2009, 09:33 AM

Apart from homo sapiens, I have yet to see any other species on this planet with anything like a child of two or three years of age's intelligence.
So? Your contention that humans are the ONLY species out of a billion on Earth to evolve intelligence is just wrong.

As I said already, if you're merely saying we're the only species to devlop radio technology out of a billion, that's fine. But that 1:1 billion then is a ratio of radio-tech-civilizations to ALL SPECIES in the galaxy (rather than to stars or planets). We don't know that figure, but based on the only sample we know of a planet with life (and assuming the one billion figure is right), the ratio of planet to species is 1:1 billion. So using this number doesn't help your argument in the least.

Our closet's relative the Chimps, show an intelligence of a two or three year old homo sapien. Give them another million years to evolve, I still doubt they will ever reach our dumbest of people's brain power.
You don't know that. Even so, it still doesn't mean that humans are the ONLY intelligent species on Earth. Yes, we're the most intelligent, but that's not the same as only.

What if we are one the first of civilisations to emerge in the universe? And it will be homo sapiens that will colonise the cosmos in the next million years or so?
I doubt that anyone will ever colonise the cosmos (or even a significantly large portion of a galaxy)--just because of the incredible distances involved. (Even at the speed of light, and not counting acceleration and deceleration time, it would take 100 years--more than an average human lifespan--to reach a star 100 light years away. Realistically, that trip would be many times longer than that. And, galactically speaking, that's just in our near neighborhood!)

Are you saying that IF humans radiated to fill up the universe (something I think is impossible), that we'd have the same effect on ET intelligence species as we've had on chimpanzees on Earth?

OK--even if that were possible, it still wouldn't mean that those other intelligences don't exist.

The universe has evolved to a point where it's become self-aware, can look back at itself, work out how it came about through us. We are the next step in the universe's evolution: consciousness.
And there's plenty of experimental evidence that shows that humans are not unique in that regard. (The spot-on-the-face/looking-in-a-mirror tests come to mind immediately.) There are a number of other species on Earth that are demonstrably self-aware. (There may be more than that, but we don't know.)

It sounds like now you're arguing that humans aren't animals--that we're fundamentally different than other life on Earth.

Intriguing speculation you must admit. I love it. My one regret, I may not live long enough to see mankind take that extra step into the cosmos.
I'm not talking about going out there--I'm just talking about evidence of ET life. We might get pretty strong evidence of microbial life on Mars in my life time. That in itself would be awesome!

LarianLeQuella

24th January 2009, 03:58 PM

Another factopr to consider with the "Fermi 'Paradox'" is that we are refining our "broadcast technology so NOW we "leak" LESS. We're using fiber optics, have more finely focused signals, etc. So, given a theoretical lifespan of a civilization, how long are they really, really noisy? And as has already been shown, even that noise isn't that easy to detect beyond a few lightyears (relative to the size of the galaxy) really.

Now, some other things to consider:
- Who says that an alien civilization must develop radio technology in order to be civlized? We have no idea how a civlization would develop in a totally different environment, let alone on a different biology.
- Who says that an alien civlization would even be concerened about anyone else "out there" to them? Maybe they don't care, or just accept some default position.

Again, I find the human/earth centric thinking displayed in this thread very discouraging. :(

JoeTheJuggler

24th January 2009, 04:40 PM

Another factopr to consider with the "Fermi 'Paradox'" is that we are refining our "broadcast technology so NOW we "leak" LESS. We're using fiber optics, have more finely focused signals, etc. So, given a theoretical lifespan of a civilization, how long are they really, really noisy? And as has already been shown, even that noise isn't that easy to detect beyond a few lightyears (relative to the size of the galaxy) really.
Good point. Another explanation for no SETI result, then, might be that most civilizations regard radio that we might think of smoke signals.

On the subject, do you know how far away our "leakage" could be detected by an Arecibo-sized radio telescope? I'm pretty sure we would only be able to detect that sort of signal from a handful of the nearest stars (if that), and we're mostly just ruling out someone focusing a strong signal right at us (at just the right moment).

LarianLeQuella

24th January 2009, 04:57 PM

In post #226, davefoc posted a good link on radio wave propegation: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html The site is blocked by CENTAF, but as I recall, it's not that far at all. Dismayingly short distance even.

JoeTheJuggler

24th January 2009, 05:41 PM

Ah thank you. It's even a shorter distance than I thought:

Detection of broadband signals from Earth such as AM radio, FM
radio, and television picture and sound would be extremely
difficult even at a fraction of a light-year distant from the
Sun. For example, a TV picture having 5 MHz of bandwidth and 5
MWatts of power could not be detected beyond the solar system
even with a radio telescope with 100 times the sensitivity of the
305 meter diameter Arecibo telescope.

So really, about all we can rule out from SETI's failure to detect a signal so far is that no one in our area has been focussing a signal at us. It doesn't even rule out a civilization with exactly our technological characteristics in the nearest star systems in recent years.

amb

24th January 2009, 11:48 PM

And there's plenty of experimental evidence that shows that humans are not unique in that regard. (The spot-on-the-face/looking-in-a-mirror tests come to mind immediately.) There are a number of other species on Earth that are demonstrably self-aware. (There may be more than that, but we don't know.)

It sounds like now you're arguing that humans aren't animals--that we're fundamentally different than other life on Earth. [quote=j
Joe The Juggler]

Of course we are different to other animals, or other life forms. We are self aware, we are self-conscious beings, we can manufacture a computer, send a man to the moon and back. We are the same as any animal on Earth, the big difference is our brain power.
Like comparing a message in a bottle to a DVD/CD player.
No other creature on Earth has our brain power and I doubt there ever will be.
Whales and dolphins have been on Earth longer than us. What progress have they made, or look like making in the distant future.
I believe homo sapiens struck a lotto jackpot in acquiring our intelligence.

JoeTheJuggler

25th January 2009, 11:54 AM

It sounds like now you're arguing that humans aren't animals--that we're fundamentally different than other life on Earth.

Of course we are different to other animals, or other life forms. We are self aware, we are self-conscious beings,
Yes, but just as matters of fact, we are not the ONLY self-aware and self-conscious species on the Earth. We are also not fundamentally different than other animals--we are in fact demonstrably related to other animals and indeed share a common ancestor with all eucaryotic life on Earth (and probably with most procaryotes as well).

There's plenty of evidence to support what I say. It sounds like maybe you're not aware of it? Mirror studies (with the dot on the face) for self-awareness in many animals (but not in others). Evidence of role reversal, trickery, etc. especially in other primates.

we can manufacture a computer, send a man to the moon and back. We are the same as any animal on Earth, the big difference is our brain power.
Like comparing a message in a bottle to a DVD/CD player.
No other creature on Earth has our brain power and I doubt there ever will be.
I agree. Interesting analogy you used. The message in a bottle technology-using civilization eventually grew into the DVD/CD player using civilization. It's strictly a difference of degree not kind that you're speaking of.

At any rate, you keep missing my "even if" rebuttal. Even if you look at it that humans are the only radio-technology using species on the planet, that doesn't really help you in the numbers game. You're not talking about radio-tech civilizations per billion stars or planets, but now talking about it per billion species in the galaxy. If you go back to the planet ratio, the Earth is still 1:1.

Whales and dolphins have been on Earth longer than us. What progress have they made, or look like making in the distant future.
I believe homo sapiens struck a lotto jackpot in acquiring our intelligence.
First, are you comparing an order (Cetacea) to a species (Homo sapiens)? What does that even mean? If you compare order to order, I'm not so sure Cetacea is so much more long-lived than Primata. Even so, this speculation still doesn't say so much about intelligence in itself (because Cetacea are noted for being intelligent), but only for technology-use and development.

There's a bit of goalpost moving going on. For a while, it sounded like you were saying while microbes might be common, more complex forms (which would surely include whales and dolphins) aren't possible besides the one time in our galaxy. Then it was intelligence, then self-awareness, and now it sounds like it's strictly technology-using intelligence. Will this continue until your claim is that humans are the only humans in the galaxy?

If so, I completely agree with that claim, but not at all for the reasons given by the rare Earth theory.

JoeTheJuggler

25th January 2009, 12:13 PM

I checked and your guess was wrong. The earliest cetaceans, pakicetids (4 legged wading mammals), arose about 53 mya. (The first fully marine cetaceans--the first thing you might think of as a "whale" or "dolphin" ancestor were the basilaurids and dorundontids that date from about 38 mya.)

Primates go back "at least 65 mya" with the earliest known fossils dating to 55-58 mya.

This is all from wikipedia pages on "evolution of cetaceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans)" and "primates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primates)"

So is your argument that since cetaceans haven't developed technology yet, they never under any circumstances will? (Actually, I think the lack of anything like a hand to do fine manipulation of things probably means their intellectual development will not be anything like that of humans, so you may be right.) And from this--I don't know--that no marine life form anywhere in the galaxy can develop technology-using intelligence? Or that dry land is required?

LarianLeQuella

25th January 2009, 01:19 PM

Homo-erectus and homo-neanderthalensis were considered separate species, and they developed intelligence. Their exctinction nevel let us know if they coud have reached the technological levels we have. I will agree that we have suffered from an incredible advance in technology (i.e. we developed nucreal arms before we learned how to give up dangerous delusions for instance). Maybe as a species we've experienced a sort of leapfrog in our technology, and are atypical in that regard. We shouldn't be at this point yet.

And how can you say conclusivelly that cetacians haven't developed some philisopical trains of thought that far surpass our own? Have you perhaps developed some sort of translation tool that the rest of the scientific community is unaware of? Please share. :p

amb

25th January 2009, 11:59 PM

Yes, but just as matters of fact, we are not the ONLY self-aware and self-conscious species on the Earth. We are also not fundamentally different than other animals--we are in fact demonstrably related to other animals and indeed share a common ancestor with all eucaryotic life on Earth (and probably with most procaryotes as well).

There's plenty of evidence to support what I say. It sounds like maybe you're not aware of it? Mirror studies (with the dot on the face) for self-awareness in many animals (but not in others). Evidence of role reversal, trickery, etc. especially in other primates.

I agree. Interesting analogy you used. The message in a bottle technology-using civilization eventually grew into the DVD/CD player using civilization. It's strictly a difference of degree not kind that you're speaking of.

At any rate, you keep missing my "even if" rebuttal. Even if you look at it that humans are the only radio-technology using species on the planet, that doesn't really help you in the numbers game. You're not talking about radio-tech civilizations per billion stars or planets, but now talking about it per billion species in the galaxy. If you go back to the planet ratio, the Earth is still 1:1.

First, are you comparing an order (Cetacea) to a species (Homo sapiens)? What does that even mean? If you compare order to order, I'm not so sure Cetacea is so much more long-lived than Primata. Even so, this speculation still doesn't say so much about intelligence in itself (because Cetacea are noted for being intelligent), but only for technology-use and development.

There's a bit of goalpost moving going on. For a while, it sounded like you were saying while microbes might be common, more complex forms (which would surely include whales and dolphins) aren't possible besides the one time in our galaxy. Then it was intelligence, then self-awareness, and now it sounds like it's strictly technology-using intelligence. Will this continue until your claim is that humans are the only humans in the galaxy?

If so, I completely agree with that claim, but not at all for the reasons given by the rare Earth theory.

Then, if you are right, that's all the more reason to stop the whaling nations in the slaughter of these magnificent creatures of the sea.
My point here is that among all the creatures on this planet, which most zoologists agree numbered in the millions, only one has acquired a technology that enables us to have this discussion.
Sure some biologists have noted some self awareness in some primates, but this awareness will never surpass, or evolve into something more.
At the present time, our knowledge of the origin of life remains a mystery. That is not to say, of course, that it will remain so.
We do know that the physical and chemical processes that led to the emergence of life from non-life were immensely complicated, and it is no wonder that w find such processes hard to model mathematically or to duplicate in the laboratory.
There are only two possibilities of how life come about.
1. It was a stupendously improbable accident.
2. It was an inevitable consequence of the outworking of the laws of physics and chemistry,given the right conditions.
No. 2 is a very big ask given all the elements and conditions having to be just right.
I remind you that I have stated over and over, that Earth is extremly rare, not impossible given the trillions of stars that are out there in all the galaxies.

JoeTheJuggler

26th January 2009, 09:11 AM

Then, if you are right, that's all the more reason to stop the whaling nations in the slaughter of these magnificent creatures of the sea.
I agree. This has nothing to do with the topic though.

My point here is that among all the creatures on this planet, which most zoologists agree numbered in the millions, only one has acquired a technology that enables us to have this discussion.
I agree. This observation does not support the claim that we are unique in the galaxy in that regard.

Sure some biologists have noted some self awareness in some primates, but this awareness will never surpass, or evolve into something more.
This is absurd. Evolution doesn't follow predictable paths. You simply cannot support the claim that I have highlighted. I'm not arguing that other primates will evolve to be humans. I'm merely pointing out that your assertion that humans are the only intelligent, self-aware beings on the Earth is factually wrong.

At the present time, our knowledge of the origin of life remains a mystery. That is not to say, of course, that it will remain so.
No. Even though we may not have observed it in the lab just yet, we've got a pretty good idea of how it happened. It's not all that mysterious.

There are only two possibilities of how life come about.
1. It was a stupendously improbable accident.
2. It was an inevitable consequence of the outworking of the laws of physics and chemistry,given the right conditions.
No. 2 is a very big ask given all the elements and conditions having to be just right.
Again, this sounds like you're talking about theological things. How does "accident" in number 1 differ from "consequence of the outworking of the laws of physics and chemistry" in number 2? It seems to me "accident" is one of those loaded words. Is the opposite of "accident" something like "intention"? If not, is there anything in the universe that is not "accidental"?

Otherwise, you've only falsely categorized an unknown probability (that can range from just above zero--but not zero--to one) into two options. That's just not an accurate representation. We don't know how probable abiogenesis is. That probability could be anywhere from just above zero up to one. There are an infinity of possible values it could have--not just two.

I remind you that I have stated over and over, that Earth is extremly rare, not impossible given the trillions of stars that are out there in all the galaxies.
Yes, and I pointed out that the word "rare" is completely relative. There could be thousands of tech-using intelligent civilizations in our galaxy (spread out over space and time), and it might still be a "rare" enough thing that we'd never find evidence of the existence of any of them.

I agree that we're not likely ever to run into another intelligent civilization--perhaps not for the entire duration of the existence of our own. That still doesn't prove that we are unique in the galaxy. And, we could well find one!

What is the purpose of asserting that we are unique? That we should quit looking or close our minds to the possibility?

I still side with Sagan's statement. No matter how "rare" life might be, what the billions and billions, I would be shocked if we were unique. But, we still have no evidence, so we just don't know.

As I've shown, the tiny amount of the galaxy that we've been able to explore even a little bit doesn't give us enough of a dataset to conclude that we are unique in the galaxy.

amb

27th January 2009, 01:17 AM

In spite of the huge growth in the subject of astrobiology, there is still no direct evidence for any extraterrestrial life. In the event that life is discovered elsewhere in the solar system, for example on Mars, then the most likely explanation will be that it dod not originate there, but was transplanted from Earth in rocks ejected from our planet by comet and asteroid impacts.. We know that Earth and Mars trade rocks, and it seems very probable that microbes have hitched a ride many times throughout the solar system's long 4.5 billion year history. So finding life on Mars would not in itself prove that life has formed from scratch more than once. To draw that stronger conclusion, it would be necessary to demonstrate that Mars life and Earth life were sufficiently different to have had independent origins.

JoeTheJuggler

27th January 2009, 07:41 AM

In spite of the huge growth in the subject of astrobiology, there is still no direct evidence for any extraterrestrial life.
I agree. Again, I side with the Sagan quote I offered earlier. We don't know, and anyone who claims otherwise is making conclusions that go beyond the available evidence.

But the evidence and knowledge we have of our own galaxy is so incredibly limited that at the very least it is extremely premature to claim that we are probably unique in the galaxy.

In the event that life is discovered elsewhere in the solar system, for example on Mars, then the most likely explanation will be that it dod not originate there, but was transplanted from Earth in rocks ejected from our planet by comet and asteroid impacts.. We know that Earth and Mars trade rocks, and it seems very probable that microbes have hitched a ride many times throughout the solar system's long 4.5 billion year history. So finding life on Mars would not in itself prove that life has formed from scratch more than once. To draw that stronger conclusion, it would be necessary to demonstrate that Mars life and Earth life were sufficiently different to have had independent origins.
I disagree with the highlighted bit. Until you have any evidence of that event happening at least once, I don't think you can make any claim that it "seems probable" to have happened numerous times.

At any rate, none of this says anything about ET life or ET intelligence. I suppose you're back to making the case that Mars is necessary for life on Earth. I've already addressed that. I can repeat it.

The idea that life arose on Mars but not on Earth, and that life couldn't begin on Earth but only on Mars, but then life travelled to Earth where conditions allowed it to become complex (but conditions on Mars prevented it from becoming complex) is far less parsimonious than the more conventional hypothesis that abiogenesis happened on Earth, and we have no idea right now whether life even ever existed on Mars.

Even if this configuration was a requirement for life on Earth, there's no saying that it's a requirement for complex life forms in general. There could be situations that provide conditions amenable to life that we can't even yet imagine, and we can already imagine some non-Earth type situations. (Silicon-based life, life in the twilight zones of tidally locked planets, life on moons of gas giants, etc.)

Even if a Mars-like planet in relation to an Earth-like planet is a requirement for life in general, there is no reason to think this configuration is unique or even particularly rare. We just don't know. We've only got relatively detailed information on one solar system. Our observations of extrasolar planets is extremely limited. We know very little about them. I believe I posted a link earlier in this thread that one study suggests that "super Earths" (planets up to around 5 Earth masses) could be as common as 1 per every 3 single stars. It could be that solar systems very much like our own number in the tens or hundreds of thousands. We just don't know.

arthwollipot

27th January 2009, 08:52 PM

Something occurred to me the other day, while thinking about the recent discovery of a methane pocket on Mars. I don't think this is evidence of life. Here's why.

On earth, life fills every conceivable niche environment, and more than a few inconceivable ones. Life permeates all parts of the globe from the deepest seas to the most remote deserts. Life has been found deep inside the crust.

It is in the nature of life to do this. Life reproduces, it evolves, it occupies niches until there are no more niches left to occupy.

On Mars, we have an isolated methane plume in one area. This is not how life behaves, so far as we can tell.

For this one little methane plume to be indicative of life, some mechanism would have to exist that prevents that life from spreading further over Mars' surface.

My thoughts only.

JoeTheJuggler

27th January 2009, 09:29 PM

Actually there have been several methane plumes found--and they're not little. Some are associated with water vapor, and some not.

At any rate, until we at least get the hydrogen/deuterium ratios (or some other evidence as to its origin), I'm not comfortable saying this methane is or is not of biological origin. We just don't know.

Life has filled every conceivable niche on the Earth. It could be that some underground microbes is the result of filling every conceivable niche on Mars. It could also be that the ecological rules are different there. Or it could be that the methane is of non-biological origin.

Again, we just don't know.

In '76, I thought I'd be witnessing the definitive answer to the question, "Is there life on Mars?" Now I understand it's not such an easy question to answer. I hope I live to see it answered with some confidence. (And I hope it's "Yes" so we can raise a whole other passel of questions!)

amb

28th January 2009, 02:12 AM

I also wish to live long enough for such a discovery, purely to see how the major religions react, and an assurance that we are not alone. I curse the time period I was born in. A child born today, providing we don't blow ourselves up, or destroy mother Earth by our stupidity, will surely live long enough to find out one way or the other.
As I stated above, if life is discovered in any other place in our solar system, and it's proved to be completely different to any life form on Earth, that will prove beyond any doubt that life exists in all planets or moons that have the right conditions.
Until that day arrives, all we have is the evidence of one planet with all the right conditions for life to have emerged.
I think silicone based life is the stuff of science fiction. Only carbon based life leads to complex life forms. Silicone may lead to very primitive life, but not animal life as we know it.

JoeTheJuggler

28th January 2009, 09:00 AM

As I stated above, if life is discovered in any other place in our solar system, and it's proved to be completely different to any life form on Earth, that will prove beyond any doubt that life exists in all planets or moons that have the right conditions.
No it won't. The "right conditions" is here only defined as the places where life exists. The question is, what are the right conditions?

And even if we knew what the right conditions are, finding life in one such place doesn't guarantee that it exists in "all planets or moons that have the right conditions." It only proves that it exists on that planet or moon.

ETA: Similarly, not finding life somewhere that has the "right conditions" doesn't prove that life doesn't occur anywhere else except on the Earth.

I think silicone based life is the stuff of science fiction. Only carbon based life leads to complex life forms. Silicone may lead to very primitive life, but not animal life as we know it.
How do you know?

Radrook

28th January 2009, 08:30 PM

I also wish to live long enough for such a discovery, purely to see how the major religions react,......

How do you imagine they'll react? There is absolutely NOTHING which restricts an ID from doing his thing on other planets. Neither does Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam have any teaching which prohibits life being created on other worlds.

BTW
Each generation wishes it could live far into the future as each furtue becomes the present. I feel the same as you do. Wish to see colonies on Mars, at the least. Yet I know that my chances aren't good. However, what we have seen and experienced most of mankind during all human history never did. So we definitely have been privileged in that way--at least.

JoeTheJuggler

28th January 2009, 08:52 PM

How do you imagine they'll react?
I imagine mostly the same way they do with any other advance in science (that is increase in our knowledge of the natural world), but shrinking their claims to fit into the remaining gaps.

I suppose they'll have to invent answers to questions that are largely meaningless to the rest of us. For example, if they believe only humans have souls (not dogs, not other primates, not cetaceans), what do they say about aliens intelligent enough to use a fully-developed language and radio technology?

arthwollipot

28th January 2009, 09:52 PM

amb

29th January 2009, 12:33 AM

How do you imagine they'll react? There is absolutely NOTHING which restricts an ID from doing his thing on other planets. Neither does Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam have any teaching which prohibits life being created on other worlds.

BTW
Each generation wishes it could live far into the future as each furtue becomes the present. I feel the same as you do. Wish to see colonies on Mars, at the least. Yet I know that my chances aren't good. However, what we have seen and experienced most of mankind during all human history never did. So we definitely have been privileged in that way--at least.

Christianity and islam plus judaism all claim a special creation in the garden of eden. That man was the ultimate creation of a deity. That the stars and the heavens were created for the sole purpose of mankind, to seperate night from day. ID is a evolution of this fact whose sole purpose is to make the babble relevant for the 21st century. :p

amb

29th January 2009, 12:37 AM

Would intelligent aliens be saved by Jesus Christ?

If the cosmos is teeming with life as some scientist claim, then Jeebus is at this very moment hanging from a cross saving another civilasation somewhere in the constellation of Pegasus. :D ;)
The next stop is on the other side of the universe. :eye-poppi

JoeTheJuggler

29th January 2009, 10:49 AM

ID is a evolution of this fact whose sole purpose is to make the babble relevant for the 21st century. :p

I agree with you there! Only I wouldn't use the term "evolution" but rather words like "disingenuous subterfuge" or "lie in an attempt to disguise religion as science."

Also, I think they're about to move on to the next deceitful term: Fine-Tuner.

The courts have in turn rejected as religion Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design when they've tried to use these as terms to get their religious views taught in public school science classes. I predict they'll use F-T next.

JoeTheJuggler

29th January 2009, 10:59 AM

Would intelligent aliens be saved by Jesus Christ?

Are there more than 3 persons in the Trinity? (That is, did God make the same mistake with other planets and need to incarnate himself as a savior there too?)

For that matter, did God intervene to deliver the same 10 Commandments elsewhere?

Is eating snagglegefleezers kosher? Even if you gather them during the double full moons?

The big one--that I've already mentioned (whether other beings have souls or however you care to term that question) has lots of ramifications. Are they covered in the "Thou shalt not kill?" commandment? (Apparently most life forms on Earth aren't--so why should intelligent aliens?)

Will a good Terran believer have to share the afterlife with those hideous BEMs?

Is sex with an alien an abomination unto the lord (since it won't result in offspring)?

LarianLeQuella

29th January 2009, 06:01 PM

Jeebus is at this very moment hanging from a cross saving another civilasation somewhere in the constellation of Pegasus. :D ;)

I forget which comic it was, but I saw one that made me laugh. An alien and a human are talking, and the human asks if the aliens know Jebus. The alien says, "Yes, he comes over every week for Ice Cream and chocolate. Why, what did you do when he came for a visit?"

:p

Radrook

30th January 2009, 09:45 AM

I imagine mostly the same way they do with any other advance in science (that is increase in our knowledge of the natural world), but shrinking their claims to fit into the remaining gaps.

I suppose they'll have to invent answers to questions that are largely meaningless to the rest of us. For example, if they believe only humans have souls (not dogs, not other primates, not cetaceans), what do they say about aliens intelligent enough to use a fully-developed language and radio technology?

You are right. If they hold outlandish, unscripturally-supported ideas such as you describe they will have to retract, regroup, and fill the gaps they created via their misunderstandings.

Radrook

30th January 2009, 09:52 AM

Would intelligent aliens be saved by Jesus Christ?

Assuming they suffer the same fall but in non-human bodies? Nothing scriptural justifies the assumption since the sacrifice Jesus gave was for the descendants of Adam.

BTW

Neither are angels who sinned scripturally described as being covered by that sacrifice.

Richard Masters

30th January 2009, 10:02 AM

Assuming they suffer the same fall but in non-human bodies? Nothing scriptural justifies the assumption since the sacrifice Jesus gave was for the descendants of Adam.

BTW

Neither are angels who sinned scripturally described as being covered by that sacrifice.

Doesn't the Bible make all extraterrestrial aliens angels?

JoeTheJuggler

30th January 2009, 01:09 PM

You are right. If they hold outlandish, unscripturally-supported ideas such as you describe they will have to retract, regroup, and fill the gaps they created via their misunderstandings.

Oh right--people who rely strictly on the scriptures have never had to adjust their views to accommodate advances in science. ;)

shadron

31st January 2009, 01:29 PM

I think silicone based life is the stuff of science fiction. Only carbon based life leads to complex life forms. Silicone may lead to very primitive life, but not animal life as we know it.

Ummmm.... No one, as far as I know, has ever done an in-depth study of the relative chemistries of the elements when the average ambient temperature is, say, 400 degrees fahrenheit. It may be that silicon (no silicone) becomes very active at that temperature and is capable of carbon's complexity.

amb

1st February 2009, 12:32 AM

The only life found here on Earth at 400f is of the microbial kind in deep sea vents and volcanos.
Doubt you'd find animal life in such extreme conditions.

JoeTheJuggler

1st February 2009, 09:50 AM

The only life found here on Earth at 400f is of the microbial kind in deep sea vents and volcanos.
Doubt you'd find animal life in such extreme conditions.
So you can safely rule out Earth-like carbon-based animal life in environments that are 400°F.

That still doesn't mean it's reasonable to claim that we are unique in the galaxy.

arthwollipot

1st February 2009, 09:35 PM

Assuming they suffer the same fall but in non-human bodies? Nothing scriptural justifies the assumption since the sacrifice Jesus gave was for the descendants of Adam.

BTW

Neither are angels who sinned scripturally described as being covered by that sacrifice.Do you know, I have never before received a reasonable answer to that question? Despite asking it in several locations? Thank you for taking the question seriously, Radrook.

JoeTheJuggler

1st February 2009, 10:16 PM

Assuming they suffer the same fall but in non-human bodies? Nothing scriptural justifies the assumption since the sacrifice Jesus gave was for the descendants of Adam.

But what about the question I posed. If God made human nature and did the whole forbidden fruit thing (knowing human nature and knowing the future), then wouldn't you think he'd make the same mistake (or devious plan) with his other creations? Then wouldn't those beings need a savior too? Not Jesus, but another incarnation of God--or another "person" to add to the trinity.

I know some Christians believe in the felix lapsus (the "happy fall"). That is, without the fall we could never be redeemed, so it was all part of God's plan from the start.

I see no reason why speculating whether God's plan for aliens would be the same or different is any less serious than any other topic in theology.

Sorry. . I guess this is drifting pretty far off topic. . .

amb

2nd February 2009, 01:33 AM

So you can safely rule out Earth-like carbon-based animal life in environments that are 400°F.

That still doesn't mean it's reasonable to claim that we are unique in the galaxy.

Well it certainly wont exist at such extreme temperatures.
For a start that enviroment will have no H20, essential for animal life.
Not on it's surface anyway. Perhaps deep underground. But if it did, it would be very primitive indeed.

JoeTheJuggler

2nd February 2009, 12:24 PM

Well it certainly wont exist at such extreme temperatures.
For a start that enviroment will have no H20, essential for animal life.
Not on it's surface anyway. Perhaps deep underground. But if it did, it would be very primitive indeed.
How do you know that?

Even if that's true, it still doesn't make it reasonable to claim that we are unique in the galaxy.

There's simply no reason to think that the physical processes that led to us can't happen elsewhere.

On another thread someone said that that assertion implies belief in a supernatural designer or deity or something. I wouldn't go that far, but I'm curious to know what the assertion is based on if not on something like us being a special act of creation.

amb

3rd February 2009, 02:51 AM

Far from it. there is no creator, Id's, fine tuner or whatever you wish to call it.
Either the cosmos is life friendly or we are a stupendous act of sheer luck.
One in a trillion trillion chance. If microbial life is found elsewhere it means the universe is friendly to the development of life. But that's light years away from animal life, let alone intelligent animal life. I repeat what I said a few post ago. We may well be the first or one of the first life in the next step in the evolution of the universe. An evolution of observers to look back at itself, and populate the whole cosmos with intelligent beings, eventually.

amb

3rd February 2009, 03:05 AM

We could explore and settle and use all the resources of the whole galaxy in less than a million years, a blink of an eye in the scheme of things. We could populate the whole expanding cosmos in well under a billion years. Awesome speculation, but I bet 100.000 years ago some homo erectus looked up at the sky and wondered what all those lights in the sky were and let his imagination run wild as well.

JoeTheJuggler

3rd February 2009, 09:06 AM

Either the cosmos is life friendly or we are a stupendous act of sheer luck.
You've said this before, and I don't understand what you mean really.

The physical processes and events that led to complex life on Earth--do you think they can't happen elsewhere?

If not, why not?

We may well be the first or one of the first life in the next step in the evolution of the universe. An evolution of observers to look back at itself, and populate the whole cosmos with intelligent beings, eventually.
And this sounds like you believe in something like destiny. Like there is a certain path that the universe is fated to follow (which again sounds very much like a supernatural belief).

JoeTheJuggler

3rd February 2009, 09:13 AM

We could explore and settle and use all the resources of the whole galaxy in less than a million years, a blink of an eye in the scheme of things. We could populate the whole expanding cosmos in well under a billion years.
Assuming we find FTL travel, which is impossible under the standard model.

Yes, I understand that we could be wrong and that technology that might seem magical to us may be possible. But it also might not. You certainly can't base an argument for us being unique in the galaxy on the assumption of technology that is currently deemed to be impossible.

Primitive humans could imagine that humans could be in two places at once or levitate and fly by will power alone, yet that hasn't happened (and probably never will). That we can imagine traveling to the stars doesn't mean it will ever be possible.

Again, the fact that other beings haven't filled up the galaxy, doesn't prove that other intelligences similar to ours don't exist.

We wouldn't be able to detect a civilization just like our own on the nearest stars unless we happened to be focusing our radio telescopes in just the right spot at the right moment to receive a narrow beam radio broadcast (assuming they sent such a signal at all and that they sent it at the right time long ago to arrive at the correct time and place).

JoeTheJuggler

3rd February 2009, 09:26 AM

As mentioned previously, it could also be that FTL is possible, but for one reason or another civilizations never endure long enough to develop it. Or that it's possible but absurdly expensive (and thus impractical).

If we get near lightspeed transportation, we'd have time dilation effects to deal with, which could also make such transportation not feasible (or at best, a one-way proposition).

JoeTheJuggler

3rd February 2009, 09:33 AM

amb

3rd February 2009, 11:13 PM

You've said this before, and I don't understand what you mean really.

The physical processes and events that led to complex life on Earth--do you think they can't happen elsewhere?

If not, why not?

And this sounds like you believe in something like destiny. Like there is a certain path that the universe is fated to follow (which again sounds very much like a supernatural belief).

To permit life to evolve in at least one place in the universe, three very basic requirements must be satisfied:
1.The laws of physics should permit stable complex structures to form.
2.The universe should posses the sort of substances, such as carbon, that biology uses.
3.An appropriate setting must exist in which the vital components come together in the appropriate way.
Even these three requirements impose very stringent restrictions on physics and cosmology, so stringent that they strike some scientists as nothing short of a fix-'a put up job' according to Fred Hoyle.
To me if the universe has abundent intelligent life forms based on carbon, as that is the most likely and only element that can produce complex animal life, that may well start the theists saying: 'I told you so.'
The chances of all the elements that made up the first life somehow coming together are in the vicinity of one in a trillion. That it happened on at least one planet would seem to some as a miracle, let alone the whole cosmos.
All these elements that are required for life are in abundance in the universe, but the question remains, how did they all come together in one place or many and start life on it's evolutionary path?
I don't believe in any god, that's why I think life was a fluke that maybe only happened once, or perhaps a dozen or so times in the whole universe at most.

JoeTheJuggler

3rd February 2009, 11:50 PM

To permit life to evolve in at least one place in the universe, three very basic requirements must be satisfied:
1.The laws of physics should permit stable complex structures to form.
2.The universe should posses the sort of substances, such as carbon, that biology uses.
3.An appropriate setting must exist in which the vital components come together in the appropriate way.
And we know beyond any doubt that all three of these requirements have been satisfied in the universe.

Even these three requirements impose very stringent restrictions on physics and cosmology, so stringent that they strike some scientists as nothing short of a fix-'a put up job' according to Fred Hoyle.
You're sure you're not making a Fine-Tuner argument?

The chances of all the elements that made up the first life somehow coming together are in the vicinity of one in a trillion.
How did you calculate this number? I think you pulled it out of thin air, and it is no more meaningful than an assertion of your opinion that we are probably unique in the galaxy.

Below you say that how abiogenesis happened is still a mystery, so you have no basis whatsoever to say what the chances of it happening are.

Believe me, I'm OK with saying we don't know--just as in the Sagan passage I quoted earlier.

That it happened on at least one planet would seem to some as a miracle, let alone the whole cosmos.
All these elements that are required for life are in abundance in the universe, but the question remains, how did they all come together in one place or many and start life on it's evolutionary path?
Again---"miracle" and "mystery" sure sound like the language of theism.

I don't believe in any god, that's why I think life was a fluke that maybe only happened once, or perhaps a dozen or so times in the whole universe at most.
Care to share where these numbers came from?

At any rate, we know a lot more about abiogenesis than you acknowledge. If you want to talk about the chances of a self-replicating molecule starting, you'd need some really really big numbers (like all the appropriate elements and precursor molecules in the primeval oceans). And that's just to calculate it's chances of happening on Earth--let alone the galaxy or the universe.

Once you get a self-replicating molecule and maybe a bubble of membrane (not a difficult thing either), natural selection starts to operate.

amb

4th February 2009, 10:37 PM

Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809--the same day as Abraham Lincoln--and published his magnum opus, On the Origin of Species, fifty years later. Every half century, then, a Darwin Year comes around: an occasion to honor his theory of evolution by natural selection, which is surely the most important concept in biology, and perhaps the most revolutionary scientific idea in history. 2009 is such a year, and we biologists are preparing to fan out across the land, giving talks and attending a multitude of DarwinFests. The melancholy part is that we will be speaking more to other scientists than to the American public. For in this country, Darwin is a man of low repute. The ideas that made Darwin's theory so revolutionary are precisely the ones that repel much of religious America, for they imply that, far from having a divinely scripted role in the drama of life, our species is the accidental and contingent result of a purely natural process.

I thought a reminder of Darwins forthcoming birthday is in oder here.

amb

4th February 2009, 10:44 PM

Again---"miracle" and "mystery" sure sound like the language of theism.

Theism died the day Copernicus uncentered the Earth.

JoeTheJuggler

5th February 2009, 11:51 AM

Theism died the day Copernicus uncentered the Earth.
I wish it were so, but unfortunately it isn't.

Theism (the belief in a god or gods) still thrives. We atheists still comprise a small minority of the world's population.

At any rate, abiogenesis on Earth is not a miracle (suspension of natural laws) or a mystery. We've got some pretty robust ideas of how it could happen.

The physical events (laws of physics and chemistry) should be the same all over the universe, so there's no reason to think it couldn't happen elsewhere. There are a LOT of elsewheres, so there's no naturalistic reason to think we're unique.

arthwollipot

5th February 2009, 08:51 PM

And this sounds like you believe in something like destiny. Like there is a certain path that the universe is fated to follow (which again sounds very much like a supernatural belief).No - not supernatural. This is the Strong Anthropic Principle, that the laws of the universe exist in such a form that the development of intelligent life is inevitable. It's teleological, but it's not (necessarily) supernatural. Nor, incidentally, is it a position that is based on evidence.

JoeTheJuggler

5th February 2009, 09:17 PM

No - not supernatural. This is the Strong Anthropic Principle, that the laws of the universe exist in such a form that the development of intelligent life is inevitable. It's teleological, but it's not (necessarily) supernatural. Nor, incidentally, is it a position that is based on evidence.

On another thread it was Westprog who said he thought the claim that we are unique implies belief in God (or something like that). You're right---I wouldn't go that far myself. My suspicions were aroused by calling life on Earth "miraculous" or "a miracle".

Curiously, Makaya used the same word.

I think in both cases, they're just arguing that it's extremely unlikely or a very very rare combination of circumstances is required. But the word "miracle" just jumps out at me. I guess they're both using it NOT in the meaning of a suspension of the normal laws of nature.

arthwollipot

5th February 2009, 10:31 PM

I think in both cases, they're just arguing that it's extremely unlikely or a very very rare combination of circumstances is required. But the word "miracle" just jumps out at me. I guess they're both using it NOT in the meaning of a suspension of the normal laws of nature.Agreed. Problem is, we can't know just how unlikely or rare an occurence it is. For it to have occurred only once in the entire universe, it would have to be rare indeed. Inconceivably rare.

amb

6th February 2009, 03:21 AM

arthwollipot

6th February 2009, 04:39 AM

I think that once life starts, intelligence is pretty much inevitable - it's such a valuable survival trait.

Smackety

6th February 2009, 04:44 AM

Are there more than 3 persons in the Trinity? (That is, did God make the same mistake with other planets and need to incarnate himself as a savior there too?)

For that matter, did God intervene to deliver the same 10 Commandments elsewhere?

Is eating snagglegefleezers kosher? Even if you gather them during the double full moons?

The big one--that I've already mentioned (whether other beings have souls or however you care to term that question) has lots of ramifications. Are they covered in the "Thou shalt not kill?" commandment? (Apparently most life forms on Earth aren't--so why should intelligent aliens?)

Will a good Terran believer have to share the afterlife with those hideous BEMs?

Is sex with an alien an abomination unto the lord (since it won't result in offspring)?

Some deeply religious coworkers have told me that aliens are evil because they do not know Jesus. He came here. That makes us special and not them.

Lonewulf

6th February 2009, 04:49 AM

JoeTheJuggler

6th February 2009, 09:27 AM

I think the whole universe is teeming with life. But microbial life. Animal cellular life, or even rarer, intelligent animal life is an extremely rare occurrence. It may be that we are the first or one of the first to evolve in the cosmos.
Fermi's Paradox still holds true.

I've already explained what's wrong with using Fermi's Paradox (or the absence of probes from advanced ET civilizations) as evidence for the absence of ET intelligence. I'll review it:

1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with probes.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's a weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you raise Fermi's Paradox again, please answer all of these points. Any one of them is sufficient to debunk it as an argument that we are unique in the galaxy.

JoeTheJuggler

6th February 2009, 09:31 AM

I think that once life starts, intelligence is pretty much inevitable - it's such a valuable survival trait.

I don't think there's evidence for that claim either. On Earth, plenty of life has existed many many times longer than intelligent life (defined as technology-using intelligence). The oldest known life forms (archaebacteria) are still the most abundant and ubiquitous form of life on Earth. Even among more complex life forms, the dinosaurs, for example, existed a great deal longer than humans have so far.

Most of the lineages of life on Earth thrived without anything like the kind of intelligence we're talking about.

amb

7th February 2009, 03:17 AM

I think that once life starts, intelligence is pretty much inevitable - it's such a valuable survival trait.

Out of the millions of lifeforms that have evolved on the Earth, only homo sapiens has developed intelligence enough to ponder these questions.
All other lifeforms seem to be doing just fine with their limited intelligence.

amb

7th February 2009, 03:35 AM

I've already explained what's wrong with using Fermi's Paradox (or the absence of probes from advanced ET civilizations) as evidence for the absence of ET intelligence. I'll review it:

1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with probes.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's a weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you raise Fermi's Paradox again, please answer all of these points. Any one of them is sufficient to debunk it as an argument that we are unique in the galaxy.

The reason I believe we may be one of the first intelligence in the cosmos is because the first generation of stars had not yet produced the carbon and other elements necessary for life and planets to form.
Carbon and all other elements is spewed into space by a star going supernova. The carbon is produced in the core of a star. Super massive stars have very short lifespans that still take around 1-5 billion years to exhaust their hydrogen supply. Our universe is around 13.7 billion years old. In other words, second and third generation stars were only able to form after the first generation stars became extinct. There has been only enough time for one or a dozen other civilazations in the cosmos at most seeing that life took around 4.5 billion years to reach the stage we are at.

Lonewulf

7th February 2009, 08:42 AM

Out of the millions of lifeforms that have evolved on the Earth, only homo sapiens has developed intelligence enough to ponder these questions.
All other lifeforms seem to be doing just fine with their limited intelligence.

Tell that to the Dodo.

JoeTheJuggler

7th February 2009, 10:33 AM

The reason I believe we may be one of the first intelligence in the cosmos is because the first generation of stars had not yet produced the carbon and other elements necessary for life and planets to form.
Carbon and all other elements is spewed into space by a star going supernova. The carbon is produced in the core of a star. Super massive stars have very short lifespans that still take around 1-5 billion years to exhaust their hydrogen supply. Our universe is around 13.7 billion years old. In other words, second and third generation stars were only able to form after the first generation stars became extinct. There has been only enough time for one or a dozen other civilazations in the cosmos at most seeing that life took around 4.5 billion years to reach the stage we are at.

I agree that after the first 20 minutes following the Big Bang, the heaviest element was Beryllium. And I agree that carbon (and all the other heavier elements) are formed by nucleosynthesis inside stars and takes some time.

But it's a huge leap from that observation to the claim that there are only from 2 (including us) to 12 intelligent (technological) civilizations in the entire universe.

There has been plenty of carbon in the universe for at least the last 10 billion years. There are countless stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies in the observable universe alone (and we do know that it's bigger than what we can see--as I've recently learned).

There could be a great many other civilizations just like ours (give or take a million or a hundred million or even a few billion years on the timeline). Nothing you've said rules this possibility out.

amb

8th February 2009, 12:07 AM

Our solar system is nothing special, yet life appeared only around 4 billion years ago.
We have to give the universe at least 5-10 billion years before an Earth like planet was able to be produced. Another 4 billion years for life to actually start from all the particles and elements that somehow came together at the right place and right time, and we come to what I consider to be one of the first intelligent life forms to have evolved in the cosmos. There just has not been enough time for billions of intelligent species to have evolved throughout the whole universe.
Microbial life, sure, but animal life takes on the average at least 4.5 billion years to evolve from nothing, on a Earth like planet that is at the right distance from it's sun like star at the right distance from the center of it's galaxy,ect, ect.

Smackety

8th February 2009, 12:14 AM

LarianLeQuella

8th February 2009, 07:07 AM

Out of the millions of lifeforms that have evolved on the Earth, only homo sapiens has developed intelligence enough to ponder these questions.

What about Homo Neanderthalis? Or are you refering to the entire genus of Homo?

And what do you know of the thoughts of other species? They may not have the technology, but do they have the philosophy? Just a thought to ponder outside our humancentric point of view. :)

LarianLeQuella

8th February 2009, 07:29 AM

but animal life takes on the average at least 4.5 billion years to evolve from nothing, on a Earth like planet that is at the right distance from it's sun like star at the right distance from the center of it's galaxy,ect, ect.

Really, the fossil record would dissagree with you on the first statement. Not sure about the start, but that would be (according to all the latest theories) about 1 billion years after the formation of the planet. Complex multicellular life took about a total of about 3 billion years. But hey, it's like government accounting, what's a billion here or there? :p

As for the Earth conditions, you are again falling victim to our one datapoint. Who says those are requirements? For life like us, yes, but evolution is very adaptible, who says that something else couldn't adapt to different conditions? We can't say one way or another.

Even the "right distance from the center" argument is pretty weak... I would GUESS that as long as it isn't IN the center, anywhere in a galaxy could have quite a good chance.

JoeTheJuggler

8th February 2009, 09:54 AM

There just has not been enough time for billions of intelligent species to have evolved throughout the whole universe.

Sure there has. There's been enough time for it to happen here. More time has not passed here than anywhere else in the universe.

This is surely the weakest argument you've put forth yet.

arthwollipot

8th February 2009, 05:33 PM

I don't think there's evidence for that claim either. On Earth, plenty of life has existed many many times longer than intelligent life (defined as technology-using intelligence). The oldest known life forms (archaebacteria) are still the most abundant and ubiquitous form of life on Earth. Even among more complex life forms, the dinosaurs, for example, existed a great deal longer than humans have so far.

Most of the lineages of life on Earth thrived without anything like the kind of intelligence we're talking about.Out of the millions of lifeforms that have evolved on the Earth, only homo sapiens has developed intelligence enough to ponder these questions.
All other lifeforms seem to be doing just fine with their limited intelligence.I think you both missed my point. And going back over it, it seems a little strong-anthropic for it to be an actual description of what I really think.

I'll have to think about this a little more.

amb

9th February 2009, 12:35 AM

What about Homo Neanderthalis? Or are you refering to the entire genus of Homo?

And what do you know of the thoughts of other species? They may not have the technology, but do they have the philosophy? Just a thought to ponder outside our humancentric point of view. :)
Apart from whales and dolphins, or is that the same species. No other animal seems to have much intellect. At least, none to start a civilization.

Really, the fossil record would dissagree with you on the first statement. Not sure about the start, but that would be (according to all the latest theories) about 1 billion years after the formation of the planet. Complex multicellular life took about a total of about 3 billion years. But hey, it's like government accounting, what's a billion here or there? :p

As for the Earth conditions, you are again falling victim to our one datapoint. Who says those are requirements? For life like us, yes, but evolution is very adaptible, who says that something else couldn't adapt to different conditions? We can't say one way or another.

Even the "right distance from the center" argument is pretty weak... I would GUESS that as long as it isn't IN the center, anywhere in a galaxy could have quite a good chance.
Our solar system is in the habital zone of the galaxy. Too close to the center, we could not possibly exist as the radiation and ultra violet light would render any planet sterile. To far from the center, and the elements that make life possible diminish to practically zero.

Sure there has. There's been enough time for it to happen here. More time has not passed here than anywhere else in the universe.

This is surely the weakest argument you've put forth yet.
If the universe is around 13.7 billion years old, and Earth life started around 4 billion years ago that leaves around 9 billion years for the first and perhaps even second generation stars to produce and spew the vital elements into the vastness of expanding space to produce Earth like planets and the very elements to produce life.
A question has to be asked, how long does a nebula take to became a galaxy, how long after that does it take to produce a solar system and Earth like planets and moons?

Roboramma

9th February 2009, 01:11 AM

Apart from whales and dolphins, or is that the same species. No other animal seems to have much intellect. At least, none to start a civilization. Did you seriously just say that whales and dolphins are the same species?
The blue whale and the humpback whale are two different species, but you think that both are the same species as a spinner dolphin?
Seriously?

As to other animals forming civilizations, go back a few million years and see if you would predict us forming a civilization.
Someone else pointed out other intelligent species in the genus homo. The fact that they are extinct now doesn't mean they never existed.

Our solar system is in the habital zone of the galaxy. Too close to the center, we could not possibly exist as the radiation and ultra violet light would render any planet sterile. To far from the center, and the elements that make life possible diminish to practically zero. How close is too close? How far is too far? How many stars exist in that area, and how did you make your determinations?

If the universe is around 13.7 billion years old, and Earth life started around 4 billion years ago that leaves around 9 billion years for the first and perhaps even second generation stars to produce and spew the vital elements into the vastness of expanding space to produce Earth like planets and the very elements to produce life.
A question has to be asked, how long does a nebula take to became a galaxy, how long after that does it take to produce a solar system and Earth like planets and moons?

Does it matter? How many billions of such solar systems were produced within the many billions of years window that we're talking about?
I'll give you a hint: a whole lot.

Lonewulf

9th February 2009, 05:04 AM

Apart from whales and dolphins, or is that the same species.

After this, it's rather difficult to take your statements on alien biology very seriously...

JoeTheJuggler

9th February 2009, 08:16 AM

Our solar system is in the habital zone of the galaxy. Too close to the center, we could not possibly exist as the radiation and ultra violet light would render any planet sterile. To far from the center, and the elements that make life possible diminish to practically zero.
You made this argument before, and it doesn't hold up. There is no dearth of heavier elements further out, and you don't know that further in radiation would preclude life.

I was just re-reading Asimov's Night Fall. (Sci-fi story about a civilization in a star cluster, who only experience a dark sky once in some thousands of years.) Here they're speculating on life in a much simpler system with a planet revolving around a single star:
"Of course," continued Beenay, "there's the catch that life would be impossible on such a planet. It wouldn't get enough heat and light, and if it rotated, there would be total Darkness half of each day. You couldn't expect life--which is fundamentally dependent upon light--to develop under those circumstances."

If the universe is around 13.7 billion years old, and Earth life started around 4 billion years ago that leaves around 9 billion years for the first and perhaps even second generation stars to produce and spew the vital elements into the vastness of expanding space to produce Earth like planets and the very elements to produce life.
A question has to be asked, how long does a nebula take to became a galaxy, how long after that does it take to produce a solar system and Earth like planets and moons?
The answer is, less time than there has been.
Again, this argument is weak. You're trying to say that there hasn't been enough time for an intelligent civilization to arise in the universe, yet here we are.

So then you're trying to argue that there hasn't been enough time anywhere else in the universe except here, even though, as I just said, more time has not passed here than elsewhere in the universe. What makes us unique? We are not unique temporally, as you seem to suggest.

How could there be enough time here, but not enough time anywhere else?

JoeTheJuggler

9th February 2009, 08:19 AM

After this, it's rather difficult to take your statements on alien biology very seriously...
And earlier in the thread I already explained that Cetacea is an order.

JoeTheJuggler

9th February 2009, 09:07 AM

Speaking of time. . . one of the prerequisites to life mentioned by the Rare Earth theory is a gas giant like Jupiter to help vacuum up debris and protect the Earth-like planet from more frequent meteor strikes.

(I suppose this is based on the observation that there's virtually no rocky debris in our solar system between the Earth and Jupiter??? Asteroid belt?)

As it is, we get belted with a big hunk of rock about once every 50 million years. Big enough to punch the ecological re-set button and give another kind of animal a shot at being top dog. You're claiming that nearly 4 billion years is a requirement for a tech-using intelligent civilization to arise. I pointed out earlier, that you could have this speculation all wrong. It could be that if the Earth got belted hard every 25 million years, that a tech-using civilization would have come up a lot sooner. (And perhaps in that time span developed the technology to protect itself from a collision.) In other words, more frequent resets might result in more chances of intelligence arising, and the big collision could be another source of selection (that more quickly wipes out forms that don't get technology--at least quickly enough).

Again, the point here is that we don't know. So claiming that any of these things are prerequisite to higher life is just speculation. I can speculate the exact opposite. It could be that the Earth is 100 million years behind the average in terms of how long it took for a tech-intelligence to arise.

amb

10th February 2009, 04:02 AM

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&id=jrBwFVggcrYC&dq=rare+earth&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=tvH4sMd4nN&sig=SdMzWlhqvLxm3Iw0DooZFcunOXQ&ei=EWuRSb6CEJiq6wO2_7G7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA243,M1

This book is availeble here.

JoeTheJuggler

10th February 2009, 10:18 AM

The first sentence on the sample page of the book you linked to says that the Rare Earth Hypothesis is an "unproven supposition". I totally agree. That's why my speculation on the requirements for higher life forms is just as valid.

It also claims the hypothesis is testable. It says there are two kinds of tests--one is by finding microbial life (using landers that test for the presence of microbes within our solar system) and the other is by searching for evidence of ET intelligence.

I don't think either of these are very conclusive tests of the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

In the first type, either positive or negative results would be compatible with it and also with the hypothesis that higher life forms are relatively common. (Recall everything I've been saying in this thread about the problem with relative terms like "rare" or "common". At this point, you've asserted that "rare" means that we are unique in our galaxy, so let's assume that's what it means here.)

For the second type, both hypotheses are consistent with not encountering any evidence of ET intelligence. If we did find the needle in the haystack, it would disprove the Rare Earth Hypothesis, but there is no test where not finding ET intelligence disproves that it is relatively common. (Again, ET intelligence can be relatively common--like much more frequent than one per galaxy or a dozen in the universe--and we'd still be extremely unlikely ever to encounter evidence of another one.)

It would be like me testing the hypothesis that there are no dogs anywhere in North America by an exhaustive search for evidence in my back yard only. If I don't find evidence of a dog in my backyard, it's preposterous for me to consider that support for my hypothesis that there are no dogs anywhere in North America. Not finding evidence of a dog in my back yard is consistent with the Rare Dog Hypothesis and with the hypothesis that there are a great many dogs in North America.

JoeTheJuggler

10th February 2009, 10:22 AM

Another way of saying it: if the null hypothesis to the Rare Earth Hypothesis is that ET intelligence is relatively common (much more than 1 per galaxy or 12 in the entire universe), there is no test short of an exhaustive, close-up search (our own civilization is not detectable with current technology beyond our solar system) of the entire universe that allows you to reject the null hypothesis.

Without FTL travel, that exhaustive search is impossible.

JoeTheJuggler

10th February 2009, 10:46 AM

On the bottom of page 245 of the book sample is this sentence:

An alien astronomer, viewing Earth from a great distance, could detect the presence of life on the planet with comparative ease.

That's just a false statement.

We've had a tough enough time even detecting extra solar planets in our immediate vicinity. We've had to use clever techniques and expensive equipment, and what we can even detect much less "view" is very limited. (See the image in post #288 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4359631#post4359631) of this thread.) An alien astronomer couldn't even view the Earth from a great distance, much less view signs of life or evidence of an intelligent civilization--unless you're assuming technology more advanced than ours or such abundant wealth that anything that is even technologically possible would be something easy to do.

Based on the sample you linked to, I'm unimpressed with the book.

amb

11th February 2009, 12:00 AM

shadron

11th February 2009, 02:52 AM

The reason I believe we may be one of the first intelligence in the cosmos is because the first generation of stars had not yet produced the carbon and other elements necessary for life and planets to form.
Carbon and all other elements is spewed into space by a star going supernova. The carbon is produced in the core of a star. Super massive stars have very short lifespans that still take around 1-5 billion years to exhaust their hydrogen supply. Our universe is around 13.7 billion years old. In other words, second and third generation stars were only able to form after the first generation stars became extinct. There has been only enough time for one or a dozen other civilazations in the cosmos at most seeing that life took around 4.5 billion years to reach the stage we are at.

No, SuperGiants live much shorter lives than that:

"Because of their extreme masses they have short lifespans of 30 million years down to a few hundred thousand years (by the equation M - 2.5 × 1010 where M = mass in sols)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergiant#cite_note-0). They are mainly observed in young galactic structures such as open clusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster), the arms of spiral galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy), and in irregular galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_galaxy). They are less abundant in spiral galaxy bulges, and are rarely observed in elliptical galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy), or globular clusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster), which are believed to be composed of old stars."

Lonewulf

11th February 2009, 05:44 AM

Of course you are not impressed by the book. You are starting from a completely different belief, and have shut your mind to anything that differs from your preconceived ideas.
That idea, as any other idea has to start with an open mind, as I did.

HAH!

"You're just CLOSE MINDED!"

What every Bigfoot, religious freak, New Age whacko uses on a daily basis when meeting a skeptic.

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2009, 07:08 AM

Of course you are not impressed by the book. You are starting from a completely different belief, and have shut your mind to anything that differs from your preconceived ideas.
That idea, as any other idea has to start with an open mind, as I did.

No. You're wrong. I'm unimpressed with the book because it makes statements like this one:

An alien astronomer, viewing Earth from a great distance, could detect the presence of life on the planet with comparative ease.

Your close-mindedness is evident from the fact that you repeat arguments that have been debunked (there's not enough heavy-elements elsewhere in the galaxy, for example).

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2009, 07:10 AM

Now, do you care to address the issue of how there was enough time for complex life to arise on Earth but not enough time anywhere else in the galaxy?

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2009, 07:31 AM

For the record, my position on ET intelligence is that we don't know. (Exactly what Carl Sagan said in that quote I cited earlier.)

I reject the claim that we are unique in the galaxy. I've shown why. You're making a claim you can't support with evidence. All you've got is speculation (or "unproven presumptions").

jhunter1163

11th February 2009, 08:29 AM

(our own civilization is not detectable with current technology beyond our solar system)

As mentioned before, this is untrue. In radio frequencies, the Earth is far brighter than the Sun. A civilization capable of radio astronomy within, say, 80 light years of Earth would have little trouble picking up our radio signals. Whether they would conclude the signals were from an intelligent civilization is another question entirely. They would, however, surely be detectable.

I doubt such a civilization exists, but it is chauvinistic to assume that just because we can't detect Earthlike planets at interstellar distances, E.T. couldn't do it.

For the record, I believe that intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist in the Milky Way: the statistical argument in favor of it (to me) is quite compelling. The problem of detection, however, may well be insurmountable (at least in our lifetimes).

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2009, 09:15 AM

As mentioned before, this is untrue. In radio frequencies, the Earth is far brighter than the Sun. A civilization capable of radio astronomy within, say, 80 light years of Earth would have little trouble picking up our radio signals. Whether they would conclude the signals were from an intelligent civilization is another question entirely. They would, however, surely be detectable.
Signals we sent out 80 years ago (1929) would just now be reaching a star 80 light years away. According to this source (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html), broadband broadcasts (like radio and TV) would be undetectable beyond our own solar system even with a radio telescope 100 times the sensitivity of Arecibo.

ETA: And, as previously pointed out, MOST of the stars in the galaxy lie much further away than 80 light years. We've only been broadcasting radio waves for about 100 years. The claim was that beings "a great distance" from us could easily detect life is false. Most stars "a great distance" from us haven't even received light from our sun emitted when humans existed. Sure you could assume some magic technology that allows them to grab those signals long before they reach them, but that's not what I would call "with comparative ease".

I doubt such a civilization exists, but it is chauvinistic to assume that just because we can't detect Earthlike planets at interstellar distances, E.T. couldn't do it.
It is equally fallacious to assume that something which is impossible to us is not only possible but "easy" for an ET intelligence. Especially if this is then used in an argument that says we are unique in the galaxy. (The standard is intelligence like us, not intelligence far in advance of us. Argument based on the absence of evidence is weak enough, but this is moving the goalposts.)

ETA: This is the same problem I have with using the Fermi Paradox as "proof" that ET intelligence doesn't exist. It assumes the existence of technology that is impossible by current understand. I'm not asserting that means it is certainly impossible, but it's a weak argument that assume something like that. (And assumes that if it's possible it will happen--as if there were no other barriers to achieving anything that is possible, such as economic limitations, civilizations not enduring long enough to achieve all that is possible technologically, lack of will to do such a thing, etc.)

For the record, I believe that intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist in the Milky Way: the statistical argument in favor of it (to me) is quite compelling. The problem of detection, however, may well be insurmountable (at least in our lifetimes).
I don't know whether it exists or not. Assuming that we are somehow special or unique hasn't panned out in the past, and there's no reason to think that something like what happened here can't happen elsewhere.

I agree with you that even if intelligent life is relatively "common" we are still not likely ever to encounter it because things are so spread out in space and time. (My issue with the term "rare" is that it is a relative term. That's why I'm focusing on amb's assertion in absolute terms: that we are unique in the galaxy and there are probably no more than 12 such intelligences in the entire universe.)

Radrook

11th February 2009, 10:16 AM

Our solar system is nothing special,.....

What do you base that conclusion on? The observation or detection of thousands of solar systems identical to ours? If so, can you please tell us which solar systems these are? As far as I know most discovered planetary systems are composed of planets having highly-eliptical orbits. But if you know something I don't....

BTW

To classify something as nothing special requires that we show that solar systems which include earthlike planets are common. By earhglike I don't mean just similar orbital distance to its star, or rotational inclination with a cratered humanly unihabitable devastated lifeless surface. But truly earthlike in the full sense of the word. Do you have one at least to tell us about?

Radrook

11th February 2009, 10:33 AM

Doesn't the Bible make all extraterrestrial aliens angels?

It describes angels as immaterial. So that definitely separates them from the concept of material aliens who might be living on other planets. That it doesn't mention material aliens living on other planets might be because they are totally irrelevant to our future and we to theirs since our assignment-from a biblical standpoint is to tend to the earth as perhaps it's their responsibility to tend to the individual realms as assigned by the ID. But of course that's just conjecture on my part albeit based firmly on what I know of the scriptures.

Radrook

11th February 2009, 10:45 AM

Oh right--people who rely strictly on the scriptures have never had to adjust their views to accommodate advances in science. ;)

Relying strictly on misunderstandings. BTW Joe. how many times have you had to readjust your perception of the universe in order to accommodate advancements in science? I mean, advancements in science are going on all the time and I'm more than sure you can't keep up with each and every one of them. For example, what will you do when they find out-if they ever do-what dark matter really is? Or if they happen to confirm the existence of the dimensions they are hypothesizing about? Or even totally discard the Big Bang as they did with the Steady State Theory?
Couldn't it be then said that you had to readjust your views because you were relying strictly on what science was telling you once? How would your misunderstanding differ from those who misinterpret scripture to mean what it doesn't? Both, after all, lead to false belief or a false perception of reality don't they?
Care t explain?

Radrook

11th February 2009, 11:06 AM

....both using it NOT in the meaning of a suspension of the normal laws of nature.

Do you consider the so-called normal laws of nature to have been suddenly suspended when they found out that stars were orbiting galaxies so fast in their outer regions that they, according to the normal laws of nature, should be careening off into interstellar space? That the detectable matter needed to keep such stars gravitionally bound isn't sufficient to account for that normal, natural-law-defying phenomenon?

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2009, 11:29 AM

Care t explain?
Sure. Science is self-correcting. As a skeptic all the "conclusions" I hold are held provisionally. I'm willing to scrap them based on the evidence. The evidence is what leads me to hold them in the first place.

Changes in scientific knowledge is consistent with the method of science.

Religious doctrine, however, is dogmatic. It is held to be changeless, yet it is required to change as science takes more and more of its subject matter and religion continues to retreat to the gaps in our knowledge.

Changes in religious belief aren't consistent with dogmatically-derived (divine revelation or whatever) conclusions.

Radrook

11th February 2009, 11:37 AM

But what about the question I posed. If God made human nature and did the whole forbidden fruit thing (knowing human nature and knowing the future), then wouldn't you think he'd make the same mistake (or devious plan) with his other creations?

The original human nature biblically described is not the human nature that developed after the fall. If it had been then the biblical ID could not have pronounced it good. In short, scripturally we have to assume that the biblically described ID gifts all his intelligent creatures with flawless or perfect bodies and intellects. That any subsequent flaw they develop is due to their misuse of their freedom of choice which has a detrimental effect on their organism causing it to deteriorate and ultimately die.

About knowing the future, the ID might be able to do all things which are doable. Does that include seeing the unseeable future? That depends on whether the future is indeed seeable or not. If it isn't, under certain circumstances than almightiness would have absolutely no effect on it just as it doesn't have an effect on squaring of a circle.

Then wouldn't those beings need a savior too? Not Jesus, but another incarnation of God--or another "person" to add to the trinity.

Scripturally it would seem to indicate that they would need a different sacrifice. An
alien life given on their behalf in order to cover their sins.

Radrook

11th February 2009, 11:51 AM

Sure. Science is self-correcting. As a skeptic all the "conclusions" I hold are held provisionally. I'm willing to scrap them based on the evidence. The evidence is what leads me to hold them in the first place.

Changes in scientific knowledge is consistent with the method of science.

Religious doctrine, however, is dogmatic. It is held to be changeless, yet it is required to change as science takes more and more of its subject matter and religion continues to retreat to the gaps in our knowledge.

Changes in religious belief aren't consistent with dogmatically-derived (divine revelation or whatever) conclusions.

No, I wasn't referring to the methods involved in arriving at conclusions. I am referring to the need for religious adjustment you condemned. You claim that science is self correcting. Granted. I never said it isn't. However, it's being self-correcting doesn't prevent it from dogmatically claiming things as truth that it later has to discard as untruths and start all over again does it?

Now, you might claim that this is superior to the religious arrival at a better understanding. But if examined closely the result is the same. A former belief is replaced with one perceived as more accurate. Both were wrong at the outset and both adjusted when they needed to--didn't they? So if the objection to the religious increase in accurate knowledge is that it is rejecting formerly held beliefs, then there is no difference between the twain and both science and religion stand condemned on that same ground.

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2009, 12:08 PM

No, I wasn't referring to the methods involved in arriving at conclusions. I am referring to the need for religious adjustment you condemned. You claim that science is self correcting. Granted. I never said it isn't. However, it's being self-correcting doesn't prevent it from dogmatically claiming things as truth that it later has to discard as untruths and start all over again does it?
Yes it does. If someone is dogmatically claiming something is true, it isn't science.

Now, you might claim that this is superior to the religious arrival at a better understanding. But if examined closely the result is the same.
The result is definitely NOT the same.

A former belief is replaced with one perceived as more accurate. Both were wrong at the outset and both adjusted when they needed to--didn't they? So if the objection to the religious increase in accurate knowledge is that it is rejecting formerly held beliefs, then there is no difference between the twain and both science and religion stand condemned on that same ground.
But did the religious adjustment happen because of new divine revelation? Not in regards to what I've been talking about (beliefs regarding the natural world--science has nothing to say about the casting out of Lucifer and so on). It happened because science proved that some of the tenets of religion (dogma, that is, or divinely-revealed "truth") were false.

Result of conclusions on the natural world derived by science: modern medicine, computer technology, transportation, food production capable of sustaining our massive population, etc.

Result of conclusions on the natural world derived by religion: creationism, creation science, young-earth geology, wrong ideas about linguistics, zoology, astronomy, etc.

The result is not the same.

JoeTheJuggler

11th February 2009, 12:14 PM

The original human nature biblically described is not the human nature that developed after the fall. If it had been then the biblical ID could not have pronounced it good.
So omniscient, omnipotent God created mankind, set up the forbidden fruit tree right there, and didn't know they'd eat from it?

Does that include seeing the unseeable future?
According to the Bible, yes. According to most theists, yes. According to the prophets, yes.

That depends on whether the future is indeed seeable or not.
That's sort of just playing games with the words. There's plenty of things that are unknowable to humans. The point of claiming God is omniscient and omnipotent was to show that his powers are greater than man's. So are you saying God can only know the things that are possible to be known by man?

Scripturally it would seem to indicate that they would need a different sacrifice. An
alien life given on their behalf in order to cover their sins.
I must've missed that part of the scriptures. Where's it say that?

At any rate, if that's so, would that change the doctrine of the Trinity? There would be the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Son and the BEM?

CodeSculptor

11th February 2009, 12:16 PM

Like Puppy says, all expenditures could be used elsewhere.

Prior to SETI, were we looking for alternative sources of energy? Surely we knew that we needed new sources of energy, right?

Lonewulf

11th February 2009, 02:15 PM

Now, you might claim that this is superior to the religious arrival at a better understanding. But if examined closely the result is the same.

All of the popes and all of the Catholic Church, since its conception, with every other religious follower throughout time...

compared to Galileo, Aristotle, Copernicus, and Newton alone... hmmmm...

No, I think the historical record shows something quite different.

Lonewulf

11th February 2009, 02:19 PM

Like Puppy says, all expenditures could be used elsewhere.

Prior to SETI, were we looking for alternative sources of energy? Surely we knew that we needed new sources of energy, right?

Let's say that we scrapped SETI, and spent all the money on alternative sources of energy (since we aren't doing that now, I guess), removing poverty, etc.

When would SETI then be funded again? What criteria would we have, before we decide that we should further our understanding of science by probing for alien life?

arthwollipot

11th February 2009, 05:51 PM

What do you base that conclusion on? The observation or detection of thousands of solar systems identical to ours? If so, can you please tell us which solar systems these are? As far as I know most discovered planetary systems are composed of planets having highly-eliptical orbits. But if you know something I don't....

BTW

To classify something as nothing special requires that we show that solar systems which include earthlike planets are common. By earhglike I don't mean just similar orbital distance to its star, or rotational inclination with a cratered humanly unihabitable devastated lifeless surface. But truly earthlike in the full sense of the word. Do you have one at least to tell us about?This might help: Mediocrity principle.

amb

11th February 2009, 11:16 PM

Now, do you care to address the issue of how there was enough time for complex life to arise on Earth but not enough time anywhere else in the galaxy?

Carbon based molecules in terrestial life have two limitations. They cannot obtain liquid water essential for their well being below freezing point. And they start to break down above a few hundred degrees C.
This narrow range of temperatures makes them suitable for life on Earth like planets only.
Remember, life began when organic molecules, molecules containing carbon, slowly began to assemble in liquid water. Carbon has an extraordinary ability to form compounds with other elements.
Water [liquid] is essential for any kind of life to begin.
We only have one example of this so far which is Earth, just the right distance from it's star to keep it's water liquid. not too hot that it would escape into space as vapour.
I have already explained why the Earth may be unique in the galaxy, and why we may be on one of the first planets to produce animal life.
Also, an advanced civilization millions of years ahead of us technology wise would have little trouble in scanning the heavens for life bearing planets.
Look at what the Hubble telescope has done for astronomy in the short lifespan it has had so far.

Soapy Sam

12th February 2009, 12:16 AM

Interesting how SETI threads / discussions tend to wander into quasi theology.

So far SETI seems to have produced one informative result- that intelligent life is either not aswarm in our neighbourhood, or is keeping a low profile.

Of course, if it turned out only one intelligent species existed in each galaxy at a time, that would still imply billions of such species, but would also imply zero likelihood of communication.
The further out we look, the larger the volume, so the higher the chance of something being there- but also the bigger the effect necessary to see it.

Maybe the tendency to erect monuments or beacons on high places is not a sign of intelligence, merely a uniquely human quirk.

Maybe, we are wrong to suppose the life / intelligent life division covers all possibilities. Life can develop intelligence; we know this because we are an example of it. Maybe life can do things we have no examples of. Maybe intelligence need not require life?
Maybe sufficiently advanced life genuinely IS magic?

I don't know if such questions have meaningful answers.
I doubt SETI can find them.
Meanwhile, it's better than nothing and the distributed computing system runs (at least for me) without the infuriatingly frequent failures of Folding at Home.

Radrook

12th February 2009, 07:24 AM

Interesting how SETI threads / discussions tend to wander into quasi theology....

Why quasi?

Radrook

12th February 2009, 07:39 AM

All of the popes and all of the Catholic Church, since its conception, with every other religious follower throughout time...

compared to Galileo, Aristotle, Copernicus, and Newton alone... hmmmm...

No, I think the historical record shows something quite different.

Of course it does. But not in the narrow area I'm speaking about.

Radrook

12th February 2009, 08:16 AM

This might help: Mediocrity principle.

Thanx for the informative link. Will get back to you on it later today.

JoeTheJuggler

12th February 2009, 10:17 AM

Carbon based molecules in terrestial life have two limitations. They cannot obtain liquid water essential for their well being below freezing point. And they start to break down above a few hundred degrees C.
This narrow range of temperatures makes them suitable for life on Earth like planets only.
Remember, life began when organic molecules, molecules containing carbon, slowly began to assemble in liquid water. Carbon has an extraordinary ability to form compounds with other elements.
Water [liquid] is essential for any kind of life to begin.
This last doesn't follow from what you have just said. You can't possibly know this.

We only have one example of this so far which is Earth, just the right distance from it's[sic] star to keep it's[sic] water liquid. not too hot that it would escape into space as vapour.
Yes, and the fact that this is the only one we know about doesn't preclude something similar from happening elsewhere. (It might be due to the known limitation on what we know about the galaxy rather than a hypothetical limitation on the incidence of intelligent life in the galaxy.) In fact, we know it's possible by the example of the Earth, so we know the probability of life in the galaxy is not zero.

Talk all you want about carbon and liquid water, but you've done nothing to show that these things (much less other types of bio-chemistry) are impossible elsewhere in the galaxy.

I have already explained why the Earth may be unique in the galaxy, and why we may be on one of the first planets to produce animal life.
It may be, but it may not be. If that's all you're arguing, I agree with you. You've done nothing to argue that the Earth is unique. Everything you've put forward as evidence that the Earth is unique has been refuted.

Also, an advanced civilization millions of years ahead of us technology wise would have little trouble in scanning the heavens for life bearing planets.

Yes, you've argued relying on technology millions of years ahead of us before, and that point has been utterly refuted. I'll list a number of objections again:
1) The technology you're assuming might not be possible for anyone ever (you're positing FTL "scanning" at the very least)
2) It might be that technological civilizations don't last for millions of years
3) Even if the civilization lasts long enough, and the technology is possible, there is no guarantee that they'd be motivated to achieve it (for economic or other reasons we don't know of)
4) It's a big haystack--there could be these super-advanced civilizations all over the galaxy, and we "just" missed them by a few hundred thousand years
5) The claim "the Earth is unique" means that there are no other civilizations at least as advanced as ours; using the absence of evidence argument like this, you're moving the goalposts to say that "if there are no super-advanced civilizations, then the Earth is unique". There could be Earth-like technological civilizations even in our neighborhood even right this minute and we'd fail to detect them (and they us). It's moving the goalposts to assume that they must be super-advanced.

Again, please don't assert this "they must be able to detect us" (a minor modification of the argument based on Fermi's Paradox) without addressing each of these points.

JoeTheJuggler

12th February 2009, 10:22 AM

Interesting how SETI threads / discussions tend to wander into quasi theology.
That's OK, some quasi-theology threads (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4426173) end up talking about ET intelligence.

Radrook and I were talking via PM about splitting this stuff about the theological ramifications of finding ET intelligent life into another thread. Seems like a lot of work. . . for someone.

amb

13th February 2009, 12:22 AM

The question has still not been answered why out of the perhaps a billion species that have ever lived on the Earth, only one has developed a technology enough to ponder these very questions. intelligence taken as a given in the cosmos is I believe naive.
In 1985 Ernst Mayr published an essay illustrating the incredible improbability of intelligent life ever to have evolved, even on Earth, by representing the history of life on Earth, by representing the history of life on Earth on a calendar year:
1 January-Origin of Earth.
27 February- Life [prokaryotes]
4 September- Eukaryotes
17 November- Chordates
21 November- Vertebrates
12 December- Mammals
26 December- Primates
30 December at 1am- Anthropoids
31 December at 10 am- Hominids
31 December at 11:56:30 pm- Humans
This shows that humans only occupy 0.025 of the total history of the Earth.
What Mayr is explaining is, although the possibility is not absolute zero that intellingence has sprang up elsewhere, he is pointing out that in his opinion as a biologist's is that the probabilities are close to zero from an evolutionary point of view.

JoeTheJuggler

13th February 2009, 08:08 AM

The question has still not been answered why out of the perhaps a billion species that have ever lived on the Earth, only one has developed a technology enough to ponder these very questions.
And I've shown that this approach doesn't further your argument in the least. You just change the Drake equation from considering number of planets to considering the total number of species. It doesn't make intelligence any less likely than just treating the Earth as 1 for 1.

intelligence taken as a given in the cosmos is I believe naive.
I agree.

I also think considering ourselves to be unique in the galaxy is a naive and unsupported proposition.

This shows that humans only occupy 0.025 of the total history of the Earth.

While I think this is an important point in considering the significance of SETI results to date, it still does nothing to support the proposition that we are unique in the galaxy.

Yes, it took a long time for tech-using life to evolve on Earth. However, there is still nothing unique about the Earth--there has certainly not been more time passed here than elsewhere.

If anything, this approach sure points out the horrible flaws in your arguments that assume that if intelligence like ours existed elsewhere that it would necessarily be millions of years ahead of ours (technologically).

Radrook

13th February 2009, 09:48 PM

Here are the reasons why I find the mediocrity principle illogical:

1. Hasty conclusion based on unrepresentative evidence.

2. Unjustifiable conclusion based on scanty evidence.

Let's consider the first:

Unrepresentative Evidence:

The idea attempts to include the earth, with its interlocking of infinite phenomenon as a common universal pattern based on the observation of infinitely less complex phenomenon.

Let's consider the second.

Scanty Evidence:
It extrapolates what is observed in this minute detectable part of the universe to all possible realms of existence while paradoxically admitting ignorance of and even suggesting the possibilities or probabilities of multiverses, dimensionalities, subtle or extreme deviations from observed laws of nature.

BTW
My delay in responding was caused by inability to log on.

Smackety

13th February 2009, 09:56 PM

theneedtoknow

13th February 2009, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by amb
Carbon based molecules in terrestial life have two limitations. They cannot obtain liquid water essential for their well being below freezing point. And they start to break down above a few hundred degrees C.
This narrow range of temperatures makes them suitable for life on Earth like planets only.
Remember, life began when organic molecules, molecules containing carbon, slowly began to assemble in liquid water. Carbon has an extraordinary ability to form compounds with other elements.
Water [liquid] is essential for any kind of life to begin.

This last doesn't follow from what you have just said. You can't possibly know this.

The reason why this is true is because of
a) the polarization of the water molecule has shown to be important for life on earth, since the slight polarization seems to hold the membranes of cells together...in fact when we put cells in any other liquids which are considered canditates for life potential (ammonia, ethane, methane) the membranes fall apart and can't keep the cell together...so that hints that to create even a single cell you might need water
b) the unique property of water of decreasing in density betweek 4 and 0 degrees ...early life needs to be protected while it forms in the water, and because ice is less dence than the freezing water, it forms a layer on the surface instead of sinking to the bottom, which helps keep the water below in a liquid phase and allows life to keep existing and evolving slowly below while mellowing the conditions of the changing environment of the planet
and c)water has a wider range of temperates than any of the 3 aforementioend canditates in which is exists in its liquid stage, making it more likely to stay liquid for long enough to allow life to form. Moreover, it has the highest boiling and freezing temperatures, which means that in its liquid stage it is hottest out of any possible "life" liquids. Chemical reactions are more likely to occur and proceed faster in higher temperature...they double in speed about every 10 degrees...the reason why this is so significant is because the next "warmest" liquid is ammonia with a boiling point of -33 celcius...thats a 130 degree difference with water...as the reaction rate doubles about every 10 degrees, that means that reactions in water would proceed 2^13 = 8192 times faster...now imagine how long it took for life to evolve on earth...and imagine it evolving 8192 times slower...there is definitely no types of stars that have anywhere even close to that kind of lifespan

So yeah i think water is quite important for life

Radrook

13th February 2009, 10:36 PM

So omniscient, omnipotent God created mankind, set up the forbidden fruit tree right there, and didn't know they'd eat from it?

The possibility was there not the certainty.

Does that include seeing the unseeable future? According to the Bible, yes. According to most theists, yes. According to the prophets, yes.

If the ID you are positing can see the future then it isn't unseeable.

That's sort of just playing games with the words. There's plenty of things that are unknowable to humans. The point of claiming God is omniscient and omnipotent was to show that his powers are greater than man's. So are you saying God can only know the things that are possible to be known by man?

No, I'm merely saying that some things are impossible regardless of the wisdom or power one uses t try to make them possible. Like the squaring of a circle. Or paradoxes such as being in total nonexistence and existence at the same time. Or being supremely good and supremely evil. Actually the scriptures do state two things that it are impossible for the ID to do.

To lie and to die.

Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

1 Timothy 6:16
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

I must've missed that part of the scriptures. Where's it say that?

It's a concept based on what was required in order to redeem mankind-someone that was also of born of mankind and bore the physical likeness of mankind. That's why Jesus is called the last Adam. Because he needed to assume Adam's likeness
in order to redeem us. If indeed aliens are in a similar situation as we were before we were redeemed, then it is scriptural to conclude that the scripturally described ID will resort to the same method if applicable. A sacrifice offered by someone born in their likeness.

At any rate, if that's so, would that change the doctrine of the Trinity? There would be the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Son and the BEM?

If mankind finds that there have been extraterrestrial creatures for which the ID has provided a ransom sacrifice, mankind need not conclude that the sacrifice was given by the same person which gave himself for us. As long as the volunteer meets the physical and psychological criteria required, then it would qualify for the job. Neither does the manner of death have to be identical to what Jesus suffered. The manner of death Jesus suffered was tied in to the Law Covenant and Israel's inability to follow it perfectly. Only if the aliens had been given a similar covenant can the same sequence of events lead to that death requirement albeit culturally determined. If indeed establishment of a law covenant between the ID and the aliens prior to redemption is inseparable from the redemption process will the death suffered by Jesus have to be similarly repeated. That assumes, of course, that the these aliens share identical psychology to us or that the only way that the ID can create creatures in his likeness is to give them a psychology we have come to consider human.

BTW

Since angels aren't described as human and are called his sons, then scripturally one need not be human to be a son of the ID.

paximperium

13th February 2009, 11:05 PM

The possibility was there not the certainty.
Therefore your god is not omniscience. End of story.

No, I'm merely saying that some things are impossible regardless of the wisdom or power one uses t try to make them possible. Like the squaring of a circle. Or paradoxes such as being in total nonexistence and existence at the same time. Or being supremely good and supremely evil.
So your god is retarded by things like logic? What a weak god you have since, "poof!" your god logically is no longer omni anything.

Since when have you or any theist ever been hampered by silly logic.

Radrook

13th February 2009, 11:08 PM

That's OK, some quasi-theology threads (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4426173) end up talking about ET intelligence.
Radrook and I were talking via PM about splitting this stuff about the theological ramifications of finding ET intelligent life into another thread. Seems like a lot of work. . . for someone.

Here is an interesting commentary:

What is Judaisms view on intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geul3bbJZJ0sgARjhrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12no0fa2e/EXP=1234681435/**http%3a//answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3fqid=20090103002729AAER6nj

Here is a more extensive article:
Excerpt:

Christianity And Extraterrestrials
Given the antiquity of the question, we might be even more surprised to find that the Catholic Church has never issued any formal pronouncement, one way or the other, about the existence of extraterrestrial life.Yet unofficial pronouncements have recently come from respected sources connected to (but not speaking for) the Vatican. Rev. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Astronomic Observatory, considers the possibility of extraterrestrials an "exciting prospect, which must be treated with caution.... The universe is so large that it would be folly to say that we are the exception." Rev. Christopher Corbally, S.J., another astronomer at the Vatican Observatory, believes that if we discover extraterrestrials, it will entail an expansion of our theology, for "while Christ is the First and the Last Word (the Alpha and the Omega) spoken to humanity, he is not necessarily the only word spoken to the whole universe." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/808178/posts?page=72

JoeTheJuggler

14th February 2009, 11:46 AM

The reason why this is true is because of
a) the polarization of the water molecule has shown to be important for life on earth,
<snip>
So yeah i think water is quite important for life
Extending any conclusion about "life on Earth" to "any kind of life" (the words amb used) is carrying the conclusion beyond the dataset.

At any rate, I also said that even if these conditions are necessary, there's no evidence that these conditions are only possible here and not elsewhere in the galaxy.

JoeTheJuggler

14th February 2009, 12:03 PM

The possibility was there not the certainty.
You quote the Bible in your reply, so I assume that's the type of omniscience you're talking about. There is it claimed that God knows the future. So he would have been certain that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit.

If the ID you are positing can see the future then it isn't unseeable.
I'm not positing any ID. (By the way--by ID you mean "God" right? Let's be honest. If you're talking about "God" don't use the weasel term "ID".)
As I mentioned, the Bible claims that God knows the future. Many believers claim that God knows the future. The prophets certainly claim that God knows the future (and further, that their writings are an expression of that bit of God's knowledge divinely revealed to the prophet).

No, I'm merely saying that some things are impossible regardless of the wisdom or power one uses t try to make them possible. Like the squaring of a circle. Or paradoxes such as being in total nonexistence and existence at the same time. Or being supremely good and supremely evil. Actually the scriptures do state two things that it are impossible for the ID to do.
Yes, but whether or not Adam would eat the forbidden fruit isn't one of those paradoxical things.

In the Bible, future events of mankind are claimed to have been known by God. How could he have known them if he didn't know that the Fall would happen?

If the future is not predetermined (and is thus unknowable) then it would always be impossible for God ever to know the future, yet there are abundant claims that he does.

It's a concept based on what was required in order to redeem mankind-someone that was also of born of mankind and bore the physical likeness of mankind. That's why Jesus is called the last Adam. Because he needed to assume Adam's likeness
in order to redeem us. If indeed aliens are in a similar situation as we were before we were redeemed, then it is scriptural to conclude that the scripturally described ID will resort to the same method if applicable. A sacrifice offered by someone born in their likeness.
But the scripture doesn't say anything about ET intelligent aliens, right? In fact, it shows a model of the universe where the Earth is flat, the sun goes around the Earth (and can stop sometimes), etc. In fact, it doesn't even allow for the possibility of other planets going around other stars (or that the Sun is in fact a star).

As I said, religious dogma has already had to be drastically overhauled to accommodate science (and those that aren't continue to rant and rave about a young-earth, dinosaurs wearing saddles, "kinds" that aren't species, and so on).

If an alien intelligence is ever discovered, I expect there will be even more revising and adapting. (And I expect there won't be a consensus among the most scholarly religious people on these big questions.)

If mankind finds that there have been extraterrestrial creatures for which the ID has provided a ransom sacrifice, mankind need not conclude that the sacrifice was given by the same person which gave himself for us. As long as the volunteer meets the physical and psychological criteria required, then it would qualify for the job. Neither does the manner of death have to be identical to what Jesus suffered. The manner of death Jesus suffered was tied in to the Law Covenant and Israel's inability to follow it perfectly. Only if the aliens had been given a similar covenant can the same sequence of events lead to that death requirement albeit culturally determined. If indeed establishment of a law covenant between the ID and the aliens prior to redemption is inseparable from the redemption process will the death suffered by Jesus have to be similarly repeated. That assumes, of course, that the these aliens share identical psychology to us or that the only way that the ID can create creatures in his likeness is to give them a psychology we have come to consider human.
And other religious people will come up with other ways of accommodating the new information.

Does your approach change the idea of the Trinity?

Please stop using the term ID. You're talking about the concept "God" as used in the Bible, right? It's a very dishonest way of using the language, I think. (We all know the "ID" stuff is just a substitute for "Creationism" which was deemed by the courts to be a religious doctrine and not science. The Dover case shows that "ID" is just "Creationism" renamed.)

Beerina

14th February 2009, 04:49 PM

Radrook

14th February 2009, 07:40 PM

You quote the Bible in your reply, so I assume that's the type of omniscience you're talking about. There is it claimed that God knows the future. So he would have been certain that Adam would eat the forbidden fruit.

Actually, I wasn't referring to any omniscience. I believe that someone else brought in the omniscience requirement. The reason I quite the Bible in my reply is because someone said he can't remember where what I said was said in the Bible said it. So to avoid that objection after the biblical standpoint had been brought in by someone else I quoted the Bible. Within that context then, my understanding is that God's knowing would be in violation his goodness. Also, my understanding is that he could not have known based on the perfection of Adam and Eve since they gave no indications of flaw upon which t base that certainty. Others of course might have a different understanding but that's mine and is the one which makes most sense to me since the others seem to create serious scriptural inconsistencies.

I'm not positing any ID. (By the way--by ID you mean "God" right? Let's be honest. If you're talking about "God" don't use the weasel term "ID".)

I don't use words to weasel out of facing the crux of subjects. The term ID is used because it is more encompassing than the term "God." Since this thread isn't religiously oriented, it would seem out of place to use the term God. So I use the term ID which can mean any intelligent designer and not necessarily the one described by religion.

As I mentioned, the Bible claims that God knows the future. Many believers claim that God knows the future. The prophets certainly claim that God knows the future (and further, that their writings are an expression of that bit of God's knowledge divinely revealed to the prophet).

Yes, but that is the human future after mankind became predictable based on its inherent flaws.

]
Yes, but whether or not Adam would eat the forbidden fruit isn't one of those paradoxical things.

I never claimed that Adam and Eve's fall is paradoxical.

In the Bible, future events of mankind are claimed to have been known by God. How could he have known them if he didn't know that the Fall would happen?

Because Adam and Eve weren't inherently predictable. Furthermore, many Biblical predictions are based on God's direct or indirect interference in mankind's affairs in order to guarantee the predicted future.

If the future is not predetermined (and is thus unknowable) then it would always be impossible for God ever to know the future, yet there are abundant claims that he does.

That's because sinful humans are predictable while flawless creatures are not.

BTW
It's quite easy for God to look at human affairs and predict the outcome of their behaviors. But that's because he has data upon which to base that prediction. No data = no prediction. He also makes sure his predictions come true in many instances.

But the scripture doesn't say anything about ET intelligent aliens, right? In fact, it shows a model of the universe where the Earth is flat, the sun goes around the Earth (and can stop sometimes), etc. In fact, it doesn't even allow for the possibility of other planets going around other stars (or that the Sun is in fact a star).

Where does it say those things? Joshua was describing what he saw during a battle. That the sun appeared not to move in the sky. Even today we write of the sun setting and rising as if it were the one doing the moving. Isaiah does mention the earth and tells us that it appears as hovering on nothing. The exact way it appears from outer space. He also speaks of the circle of the earth. Exactly how it appears from outer space. He mentions God stretching out the heavens like a gauze. Exactly how science perceives the aftermath of the Big Bang. It mentions the sun and the stars. That's because the Sun appears as different from the surface of the earth and not like a tiny star. Do we modern humans refer to the sun as the Star when we talk about it? Of course not. Does that mean we reject it as being a star?

As I said, religious dogma has already had to be drastically overhauled to accommodate science (and those that aren't continue to rant and rave about a young-earth, dinosaurs wearing saddles, "kinds" that aren't species, and so on).

I've seen cartoons on TV where dinosaurs wear saddles. I don't watch them. Neither am I a young earthist. Species? Well, they speciated didn't they?

If an alien intelligence is ever discovered, I expect there will be even more revising and adapting. (And I expect there won't be a consensus among the most scholarly religious people on these big questions.)

I never said there would be a consensus.

And other religious people will come up with other ways of accommodating the new information.

Of course.

Does your approach change the idea of the Trinity?

I'm not a Trinitarian.

BTW
My approach on this thread is one which makes room for extraterrestrial life on other planets. Since the issue of redemption was brought up-I responded to it within that extraterrestrial context and from the ID as biblically described. Some say that that ID fits the Trinitarian idea. Others say it does not. If indeed it is ever proven that the biblically described ID has indeed created creatures in its image on other planets and seen the need to redeem, then those holding the Trinitarian view will assume it was done in a manner consistent with that view. Those Christians who don't abide by the Nicene Council decision will view it differently.

Please stop using the term ID. You're talking about the concept "God" as used in the Bible, right? It's a very dishonest way of using the language, I think. (We all know the "ID" stuff is just a substitute for "Creationism" which was deemed by the courts to be a religious doctrine and not science. The Dover case shows that "ID" is just "Creationism" renamed.)

The term ID fits the concept that I am talking about more honestly than the word God does since I'm not necessarily talking about the ID as described by religions. The only reason that the word "God" came up is because the readers assumed I meant "God" and began approaching the subject from that angle forcing me to reply in kind. If the reader could please refrain from assuming I mean "God" or a god, or any other supernatural being as described by religions then the religious angle would never come up.

Radrook

14th February 2009, 08:04 PM

You sound like an atheist. Well said.

I believe in an ID. Does that disqualify me as an atheist?

JoeTheJuggler

14th February 2009, 11:42 PM

There's a long, long future ahead.
But we don't know for sure that we (or another radio-technology using intelligent civilization) will be part of that long future.

That's one of my objections to the argument based on Fermi's Paradox. (If any other intelligence exists, it would be older and far in advance of us, and we'd already have evidence of them. Since we don't have that evidence, they don't exist.) We have no idea how long-lived a typical technological intelligent civilization is.

JoeTheJuggler

14th February 2009, 11:58 PM

never claimed that Adam and Eve's fall is paradoxical.
I brought up the problem of omniscience wrt to The Fall. (God made them, but couldn't foresee that they'd eat the forbidden fruit?) You said omniscience doesn't include things that are unknowable, such as paradoxes (like a 4 sided triangle). I'm pointing out that since The Fall is not such a paradox, it should be knowable to an omniscient God.

Because Adam and Eve weren't inherently predictable.
Neither is most of the future, yet there are plenty of claims in the Bible and by theists of all kinds that God does in fact know the future (especially in terms of human events).

That's because sinful humans are predictable while flawless creatures are not.
But if Adam and Eve were flawless, how could they sin?

It's quite easy for God to look at human affairs and predict the outcome of their behaviors. But that's because he has data upon which to base that prediction. No data = no prediction. He also makes sure his predictions come true in many instances.
No way. You're not talking about knowledge now, you're talking about making educated guesses. Omniscience is the claim of knowledge. And the Bible and most theists give this as an attribute of God.

Not that he's just really good at statistics.

Where does it say those things? Joshua was describing what he saw during a battle. That the sun appeared not to move in the sky. Even today we write of the sun setting and rising as if it were the one doing the moving.
Nope, that's not what it says in Joshua:

12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [b] its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

Do we modern humans refer to the sun as the Star when we talk about it? Of course not.
Yes, in fact we do. Astrophysicists do routinely. I'm a bit of an amateur astronomer myself, and I guarantee you I talk with others of the sun being a star.

My approach on this thread is one which makes room for extraterrestrial life on other planets. Since the issue of redemption was brought up-I responded to it within that extraterrestrial context and from the ID as biblically described.
And I appreciate that. I think after your first comment, someone asked what the religious ramifications would be of discovering ET intelligence, and that's where this side conversation took off.

The term ID fits the concept that I am talking about more honestly than the word God does since I'm not necessarily talking about the ID as described by religions. The only reason that the word "God" came up is because the readers assumed I meant "God" and began approaching the subject from that angle forcing me to reply in kind. If the reader could please refrain from assuming I mean "God" or a god, or any other supernatural being as described by religions then the religious angle would never come up.
Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. You're talking about a very specific meaning of God. (And again, this side conversation took off from the question about the religious ramifications of ET intelligence.) ID is just a stand-in for that concept--one that lets you avoid discussing more troublesome aspects of the concept. I can think of no honest use for the term.

amb

14th February 2009, 11:59 PM

I don't know if that reasoning holds true. 80% of the work was just getting to multi-celled stuff. From there, chordates and the rest followed quickly.

In any case, the proper time comparison isn't basically a few seconds after humans began to exist and analyze themselves. There's a long, long future ahead. So for both reasons, his statistical judgment is not valid for the data presented.

We don't know that. We could become extinct in the next 10.000 years if not sooner. The climate may have something to to do with that as well. Earth may become a runaway green house just like Venus in less than that time frame.
Then there is the problem of religion to overcome. Think Islamic extremists would think twice about unleashing nuclear armed ICBMs?
But presuming that mankind survives for millions of years is my argument for Earth been one of the first to produce an intelligence that will became capable of colonising the galaxy and beyond.

JoeTheJuggler

15th February 2009, 12:19 AM

We don't know that. We could become extinct in the next 10.000 years if not sooner. The climate may have something to to do with that as well. Earth may become a runaway green house just like Venus in less than that time frame.
Then there is the problem of religion to overcome. Think Islamic extremists would think twice about unleashing nuclear armed ICBMs?

I agree. We have no idea how long our civilization will last.

But presuming that mankind survives for millions of years is my argument for Earth been one of the first to produce an intelligence that will became capable of colonising the galaxy and beyond.
Why is that? Couldn't there right now be hundreds of civilizations just about like ours throughout the galaxy? Why do you suppose we would be the first? (We're nowhere near capable of interstellar travel right now. There could be others that are much closer--if it's even possible.)

Again, there's no reason that the sort of thing that happened here can't happen elsewhere in the galaxy--and there are an awful lot of elsewheres out there!

LarianLeQuella

15th February 2009, 02:50 PM

In radio frequencies, the Earth is far brighter than the Sun.

That was something someone speculated about quite a ways back. This: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html would tend to disagree with that statement. That inverse square thing can be a bitch! I guess that statement is true if you are closer to the earth than the sun though, but then how extraterrestral are you then?

amb

15th February 2009, 11:55 PM

I agree. We have no idea how long our civilization will last.

Why is that? Couldn't there right now be hundreds of civilizations just about like ours throughout the galaxy? Why do you suppose we would be the first? (We're nowhere near capable of interstellar travel right now. There could be others that are much closer--if it's even possible.)

Again, there's no reason that the sort of thing that happened here can't happen elsewhere in the galaxy--and there are an awful lot of elsewheres out there!

I harp back to the argument of the habitable zone of a typical galaxy which is around 10% of the total galaxy which probably accounts for the same amount of stars. Out of that 10% of stars, how many will actually be life friendly like our sun and having a planet at just the right habitable zone as is Earth to allow life to evolve over 4.5 billion years? Not forgetting the importance of a large moon to stabilise Earth's orbit.
Of course there is bound to be other Earths out there because of the sheer numbers of galaxies and the trillions of stars. My argument is that the Earth is rarer than some astrobiologist claim.

JoeTheJuggler

16th February 2009, 08:58 AM

I harp back to the argument of the habitable zone of a typical galaxy which is around 10% of the total galaxy which probably accounts for the same amount of stars. Out of that 10% of stars, how many will actually be life friendly like our sun and having a planet at just the right habitable zone as is Earth to allow life to evolve over 4.5 billion years? Not forgetting the importance of a large moon to stabilise Earth's orbit.
Of course there is bound to be other Earths out there because of the sheer numbers of galaxies and the trillions of stars.

And the notion that only this 10% of the galaxy is habitable is pure, unsupported conjecture. I've already answered this one.

There is not dearth of heavy metals elsewhere in the galaxy as you had claimed. And the "too much radiation" issue could be resolved any number of ways.

I've also already addressed the notion that a large moon is needed to stabilize a planet's orbit. (It's not.) Are you suggesting that without a large moon a planet's orbit would be unstable? What physics or observations of planets support that notion?
ETA: Are the orbits of Venus and Mars unstable?
Also, as I've said before, even if a large moon is a prerequisite to complex life, as you speculate, there's no argument that says a large moon is impossible elsewhere in the galaxy. It could well be that our solar system is typical (where 1 in 3 of roughly earth-sized planets has a very large moon).

My argument is that the Earth is rarer than some astrobiologist claim.
So now we're back to the word "rarer". As I've pointed out this is a relative term. I would agree that intelligent life might be rare enough that we're never likely to encounter another civilization out there, but there could still be hundreds or thousands in our galaxy alone. Here you've at least defined "rarer" as being "rarer than some astrobiologists claim." Do you have any evidence that any astrobiologists claim there is life somewhere? (As far as I know all scientists follow the evidence unless they're just speculating or opining or something. I don't know of any who make a claim for the existence of life when there is no evidence for it. If they do, I agree with you that it's bad science.)

So you're abandoning the claim that we are unique in the galaxy?

Radrook

16th February 2009, 10:10 AM

I brought up the problem of omniscience wrt to The Fall. (God made them, but couldn't foresee that they'd eat the forbidden fruit?) You said omniscience doesn't include things that are unknowable, such as paradoxes (like a 4 sided triangle). I'm pointing out that since The Fall is not such a paradox, it should be knowable to an omniscient God.

But it could very well be impossible to predict an outcome without any basis for doing so.
Predictions don't exist in a vacuum. There are reasons why they are made. If I predict an outcome as certain, you will ask me why I say such a thing. I will give you my reasons based on my observations which indicate that outcome under given circumstances will be a certainty. In the natural sciences we can do this with ease. Two chemicals mixed together will result in a given consequence. But in the social or behavioral sciences this isn't
so. A stimulus can produce a multitude of reactions. Let me illustrate.

A person goes to the movies at a given date and hour. Why? Interest in the film? Boredom at home? Escaping from the police and trying to blend in? Doing research for a term paper? Part of his job as a columnist? Looking for a girlfriend? Spying on his wife? Hit man planning to kill? Waiting for an interview for an usher job? We see the behavior which is movie watching but can't say why unless we are intimately knowledgeable with the motives.

Another example and perhaps a better one. If challenged to fight will Joe run or hold his ground? I can predict with certainty only if I am familiar with Joe's character. For example if he is a strict pacifist I will predict he won't fight. If belligerently inclined or violently inclined I'll predict he will fight. If a coward I will predict he will flee or beg for mercy. If he has all those characteristics in varying amounts then I will have to evaluate which one takes precedence over the others. His present family situation. His present mood. All bear upon the prediction as well.

However, if there is absolutely NOTHING to indicate what Joe's a behavior will be then I have no basis for any type of prediction except that the Joe will exercise he freedom to choose. If Joe has no character flaws I can hone in on, then I can predict he will do the right thing because he is flawless. Predicting otherwise involves going against what I know about the Joe, that he has no mental or physical flaws indicating a flawed action. Create a perfect machine and perfect function is expected unless the user misuses or abuses it somehow. Like pouring sand into the engine for example. I'm of course referring to the Adam Eve scenario.

Neither is most of the future, yet there are plenty of claims in the Bible and by theists of all kinds that God does in fact know the future (especially in terms of human events).

But if Adam and Eve were flawless, how could they sin?

When we speak of perfection we have to consider that perfection is a subjective term and varies in accordance with the person setting up the criteria. In this instance the criteria for perfection required the ability to choose. Inability to choose, then would have signified imperfection or flaw.

No way. You're not talking about knowledge now, you're talking about making educated guesses. Omniscience is the claim of knowledge. And the Bible and most theists give this as an attribute of God. Not that he's just really good at statistics.

If indeed they are claiming someone can know the unknowable then they are creating a paradox. Being omniscient means knowing all that is knowable. T require more from omniscience than knowing the knowable is irrational just as requiring that someone who can lift anything liftable be required to lift the unlovable. Or someone who can solve all solvable problems solve the unsolvable such as squaring a circle.

Nope, that's not what it says in Joshua:[/qupote]

Well, all I see him doing is describing what he is seeing. But let's take this a step further.
Let's assume that an almight being is incapable of extending daylighjt without having to
stop earth's rotation momentarily. Let's say that at a moment diriung hiuman history the
almighty being decided to do it. Then Joshuah would have been 100% correct in the literal meaning of his words wouldn't he? Actiually, even if that's not the ponderous method [from our standpoint] used, Joshuah would still report it in the same manner in harmony with his observations.

[quote]
Yes, in fact we do. Astrophysicists do routinely. I'm a bit of an amateur astronomer myself, and I guarantee you I talk with others of the sun being a star.

I didn't say that astromnomers bnever refer to the sun as a star or that they don'y referr to it constantlky as a star. I said that most of manbkind speak of it as the sun, descreibe it as rosing and setting as if it itself were the primary cause for that perceived motion.

And I appreciate that. I think after your first comment, someone asked what the religious ramifications would be of discovering ET intelligence, and that's where this side conversation took off.

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. You're talking about a very specific meaning of God.

The meaning of God or the ID I introduced was in accordabnce with the Christian concept
requiring that explanation.

gain, this side conversation took off from the question about the religious ramifications of ET intelligence.) ID is just a stand-in for that concept--one that lets you avoid discussing more troublesome aspects of the concept. I can think of no honest use for the term.

Again you accuse me of dishonestly and cunningly trying to avoid discussing things which you think I consider troublesome instead of trying to use terminology more consistent with the thread's theme. Actually, I don't find anything having to do with an ID troublesome.
So I really don't know what you are redferring to. Neither am I inclined to feel obligated to
repeatedly explain my preference for certain terms after being called a hipocriteical dishonest, cowardly sneaking liar. If indeed that is the way you are perceiving my posts then maybe you should place mne on ignore.

BTW
You keep mentioning the majority of theists and thelogians. To me that sounds like appeal to tradition or bandwagon.

Radrook

16th February 2009, 10:13 AM

I brought up the problem of omniscience wrt to The Fall. (God made them, but couldn't foresee that they'd eat the forbidden fruit?) You said omniscience doesn't include things that are unknowable, such as paradoxes (like a 4 sided triangle). I'm pointing out that since The Fall is not such a paradox, it should be knowable to an omniscient God.

But it could very well be impossible to predict an outcome without any basis for doing so.
Predictions don't exist in a vacuum. There are reasons why they are made. If I predict an outcome as certain, you will ask me why I say such a thing. I will give you my reasons based on my observations which indicate that outcome under given circumstances will be a certainty. In the natural sciences we can do this with ease. Two chemicals mixed together will result in a given consequence. But in the social or behavioral sciences this isn't
so. A stimulus can produce a multitude of reactions. Let me illustrate.

A person goes to the movies at a given date and hour. Why? Interest in the film? Boredom at home? Escaping from the police and trying to blend in? Doing research for a term paper? Part of his job as a columnist? Looking for a girlfriend? Spying on his wife? Hit man planning to kill? Waiting for an interview for an usher job? We see the behavior which is movie watching but can't say why unless we are intimately knowledgeable with the motives.

Another example and perhaps a better one. If challenged to fight will Joe run or hold his ground? I can predict with certainty only if I am familiar with Joe's character. For example if he is a strict pacifist I will predict he won't fight. If belligerently inclined or violently inclined I'll predict he will fight. If a coward I will predict he will flee or beg for mercy. If he has all those characteristics in varying amounts then I will have to evaluate which one takes precedence over the others. His present family situation. His present mood. All bear upon the prediction as well.

However, if there is absolutely NOTHING to indicate what Joe's a behavior will be then I have no basis for any type of prediction except that the Joe will exercise he freedom to choose. If Joe has no character flaws I can hone in on, then I can predict he will do the right thing because he is flawless. Predicting otherwise involves going against what I know about the Joe, that he has no mental or physical flaws indicating a flawed action. Create a perfect machine and perfect function is expected unless the user misuses or abuses it somehow. Like pouring sand into the engine for example. I'm of course referring to the Adam Eve scenario.

Neither is most of the future, yet there are plenty of claims in the Bible and by theists of all kinds that God does in fact know the future (especially in terms of human events).

But if Adam and Eve were flawless, how could they sin?

When we speak of perfection we have to consider that perfection is a subjective term and varies in accordance with the person setting up the criteria. In this instance the criteria for perfection required the ability to choose. Inability to choose, then would have signified imperfection or flaw.

No way. You're not talking about knowledge now, you're talking about making educated guesses. Omniscience is the claim of knowledge. And the Bible and most theists give this as an attribute of God. Not that he's just really good at statistics.

If indeed they are claiming someone can know the unknowable then they are creating a paradox. Being omniscient means knowing all that is knowable. T require more from omniscience than knowing the knowable is irrational just as requiring that someone who can lift anything liftable be required to lift the unlovable. Or someone who can solve all solvable problems solve the unsolvable such as squaring a circle.

Nope, that's not what it says in Joshua:[/qupote]

Well, all I see him doing is describing what he is seeing. But let's take this a step further.
Let's assume that an almighty being is incapable of extending daylight without having to
stop earth's rotation momentarily. Let's say that at a moment during human history the
almighty being decided to do it. Then Joshua would have been 100% correct in the literal meaning of his words wouldn't he? Actually, even if that's not the ponderous method [from our standpoint] used, Joshua would still report it in the same manner in harmony with his observations.

[quote]
Yes, in fact we do. Astrophysicists do routinely. I'm a bit of an amateur astronomer myself, and I guarantee you I talk with others of the sun being a star.

I didn't say that astronomers never refer to the sun as a star or that they don't refer to it constantly as a star. I said that most of mankind speak of it as the sun, describe it as rising and setting as if it itself were the primary cause for that perceived motion.

And I appreciate that. I think after your first comment, someone asked what the religious ramifications would be of discovering ET intelligence, and that's where this side conversation took off.

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. You're talking about a very specific meaning of God.

The meaning of God or the ID I introduced was in accordance with the Christian concept
requiring that explanation.

gain, this side conversation took off from the question about the religious ramifications of ET intelligence.) ID is just a stand-in for that concept--one that lets you avoid discussing more troublesome aspects of the concept. I can think of no honest use for the term.

Again you accuse me of dishonestly and cunningly trying to avoid discussing things which you think I consider troublesome instead of trying to use terminology more consistent with the thread's theme. Actually, I don't find anything having to do with an ID troublesome. So I really don't know what you are referring to. Neither am I inclined to feel obligated to repeatedly explain my preference for certain terms after being called a hypocritical dishonest, cowardly sneaking liar. If indeed that is the way you are perceiving my posts then maybe you should place me on ignore.

BTW
You keep mentioning the majority of theists and theologians. To me that sounds like appeal to tradition or bandwagon.

JoeTheJuggler

16th February 2009, 11:17 AM

But it could very well be impossible to predict an outcome without any basis for doing so.
Predictions don't exist in a vacuum. There are reasons why they are made. If I predict an outcome as certain, you will ask me why I say such a thing. I will give you my reasons based on my observations which indicate that outcome under given circumstances will be a certainty. In the natural sciences we can do this with ease. Two chemicals mixed together will result in a given consequence. But in the social or behavioral sciences this isn't
so. A stimulus can produce a multitude of reactions. Let me illustrate.

A person goes to the movies at a given date and hour. Why? Interest in the film? Boredom at home? Escaping from the police and trying to blend in? Doing research for a term paper? Part of his job as a columnist? Looking for a girlfriend? Spying on his wife? Hit man planning to kill? Waiting for an interview for an usher job? We see the behavior which is movie watching but can't say why unless we are intimately knowledgeable with the motives.

Another example and perhaps a better one. If challenged to fight will Joe run or hold his ground? I can predict with certainty only if I am familiar with Joe's character. For example if he is a strict pacifist I will predict he won't fight. If belligerently inclined or violently inclined I'll predict he will fight. If a coward I will predict he will flee or beg for mercy. If he has all those characteristics in varying amounts then I will have to evaluate which one takes precedence over the others. His present family situation. His present mood. All bear upon the prediction as well.

However, if there is absolutely NOTHING to indicate what Joe's a behavior will be then I have no basis for any type of prediction except that the Joe will exercise he freedom to choose. If Joe has no character flaws I can hone in on, then I can predict he will do the right thing because he is flawless. Predicting otherwise involves going against what I know about the Joe, that he has no mental or physical flaws indicating a flawed action. Create a perfect machine and perfect function is expected unless the user misuses or abuses it somehow. Like pouring sand into the engine for example. I'm of course referring to the Adam Eve scenario.
And here you've made an excellent case that you (and the rest of us humans) are not omniscient.

Many theists claim that God is different, and can know what is unknowable to us.

When we speak of perfection we have to consider that perfection is a subjective term and varies in accordance with the person setting up the criteria. In this instance the criteria for perfection required the ability to choose. Inability to choose, then would have signified imperfection or flaw.
It's still logically contradictory. If the thing is perfect, any change (making a choice) would mean either it is now imperfect, or it wasn't perfect before.

If indeed they are claiming someone can know the unknowable then they are creating a paradox.

Being omniscient means knowing all that is knowable.

You're just leaving off a great big consideration: "unknowable" to whom? Generally, the term refers to humans. Omniscience is the claim that God knows what is unknowable to humans. Otherwise, it only means that God knows what humans know.

Again, from the Baltimore Catechism:
18. Q. Does God know all things?

A. God knows all things, even our most secret thoughts, words, and actions.

So are the most secret thoughts words and actions of other people knowable? (They're not knowable to me--hence the term "secret".)

And if you like, I can provide plenty of examples that theists believe God knows the future. (Not guess or makes statistical assessments of the probabilities, but actually knows.) So my reading of the meaning of "omniscience" is certainly based in what people actually profess to believe.

Nope, that's not what it says in Joshua:

Well, all I see him doing is describing what he is seeing.

Where are you getting that? I cited the story where Joshua commanded the Lord God to stop the sun, and he did so. Nothing about it just looked like the sun stood still for a long time. I left on that bit where it says this event is not like anything that has happened before or since--where God basically obeyed the command of a man. That's certainly proof that it's not your reading--where the phrase the sun stood still just means it seemed like a long day (because even you said that that happens all the time).

I didn't say that astromnomers bnever refer to the sun as a star or that they don'y referr to it constantlky as a star. I said that most of manbkind speak of it as the sun, descreibe it as rosing and setting as if it itself were the primary cause for that perceived motion.
But you're completely ignoring that the "science" of the Bible is wrong on many accounts. It used the cosmology of its day (and varied over time). It was taken to support a geocentric model at least up until the 17th Century. (The Church prosecuted Galileo for suspicion of heresy because he was promoting the Copernican model as an accurate description of the natural world, which the Church claimed was in conflict with the holy scriptures.)

I'm not making this up. Nowhere in the Bible does it treat the sun as if it were a star.

In Matthew, there is a description of a strange star--one that men could see in the East yet follow from the East (an obvious mistake on the author's part) and that stopped and hovered over Herod's palace, then moved again and stopped and hovered over the house where Jesus was born.

Again you accuse me of dishonestly and cunningly trying to avoid discussing things which you think I consider troublesome instead of trying to use terminology more consistent with the thread's theme. Actually, I don't find anything having to do with an ID troublesome.
So I really don't know what you are redferring to. Neither am I inclined to feel obligated to
repeatedly explain my preference for certain terms after being called a hipocriteical dishonest, cowardly sneaking liar. If indeed that is the way you are perceiving my posts then maybe you should place mne on ignore.
How about this entire section (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html#p46) of the Kitsmiller v. Dover Board of Education decision? The title is "1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism".

There is abundant evidence that the Intelligent Design Movement is merely new terminology for religious ideas, and that the only "Designer" they're referring to is God. Do you know what "cdesign proponentists" refers to?

You keep mentioning the majority of theists and thelogians. To me that sounds like appeal to tradition or bandwagon.
Because we're talking about my assertion that historically religious people have had to change their doctrine when it comes face to face with contradictory evidence of science.

It would be an appeal to tradition or bandwagon if I were actually supporting those beliefs. In fact, I'm attacking them!

ETA: In other words, it's not an appeal to the masses if the proposition I'm trying to support is "this is what the masses profess to believe".

I'm using stuff like the Baltimore Catechism or beliefs that are widely held by theists and theologians to make my case that these things have had to change when confronted with science. (That assertion to support the idea that finding an ET intelligence would force them to change some more. Another example--if God had to incarnate and save another species, wouldn't the creeds that referred to Jesus as the "only begotten Son" of the Father have to be amended?)

I'm talking about majority beliefs because otherwise, I've found, theists tend to refuse to put forth their actual beliefs or even to deny their own beliefs and turn into deists before my very eyes.

JoeTheJuggler

16th February 2009, 11:20 AM

I harp back to the argument

I think you meant "hark". :)

Radrook

16th February 2009, 02:04 PM

And here you've made an excellent case that you (and the rest of us humans) are not omniscient.

Many theists claim that God is different, and can know what is unknowable to us.

Of course if you asked them that's the response you might get. But you are asking me.

It's still logically contradictory. If the thing is perfect, any change (making a choice) would mean either it is now imperfect, or it wasn't perfect before.

As I said, perfection is determined by the one setting the criteria.

You're just leaving off a great big consideration: "unknowable" to whom? Generally, the term refers to humans. Omniscience is the claim that God knows what is unknowable to humans. Otherwise, it only means that God knows what humans know.

Again, from the Baltimore Catechism:

So are the most secret thoughts words and actions of other people knowable? (They're not knowable to me--hence the term "secret".)

From a human standpoint.

BTW

I bet you have no problem suspending disbelief when confronted with a good sci fi film where aliens communicate via thoughts. It's just when the God thing is introduced
isn't it?

And if you like, I can provide plenty of examples that theists believe God knows the future. (Not guess or makes statistical assessments of the probabilities, but actually knows.) So my reading of the meaning of "omniscience" is certainly based in what people actually profess to believe.

Again! What does what people profess to believe have to do with me?

are you getting that? I cited the story where Joshua commanded the Lord God to stop the sun, and he did so. Nothing about it just looked like the sun stood still for a long time. I left on that bit where it says this event is not like anything that has happened before or since--where God basically obeyed the command of a man.

I have no problem accepting that. I do have a problem accepting pop-goes-the-weasel abiogenesis though.

That's certainly proof that it's not your reading--where the phrase the sun stood still just means it seemed like a long day (because even you said that that happens all the time).

I never said that!

But you're completely ignoring that the "science" of the Bible is wrong on many accounts. It used the cosmology of its day (and varied over time). It was taken to support a geocentric model at least up until the 17th Century. (The Church prosecuted Galileo for suspicion of heresy because he was promoting the Copernican model as an accurate description of the natural world, which the Church claimed was in conflict with the holy scriptures.)

Geocentricity might have been claimed by the Church. But the church also claimed rthe right to skin and burn people alive after ripping out their tongues ad other such nonbiblical practices as being biblically supported. Were they right on that? Of course not. The Church was wrong just as it was wrong in their claim that the Bible supports a geocentric earth. Yes, I know all the counterarguments and interpretations and citations that can be used to make it appear that way.
But I don't find them compelling.

I don't represent any denominational church on this forum

I'm not making this up. Nowhere in the Bible does it treat the sun as if it were a star.

Did I say that it did?

In Matthew, there is a description of a strange star--one that men could see in the East yet follow from the East (an obvious mistake on the author's part) and that stopped and hovered over Herod's palace, then moved again and stopped and hovered over the house where Jesus was born.

I have no difficulties with that passage. I do have difficulties with fish slowly turning into people though.

this entire section (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html#p46) of the Kitsmiller v. Dover Board of Education decision? The title is "1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism".

There is abundant evidence that the Intelligent Design Movement is merely new terminology for religious ideas, and that the only "Designer" they're referring to is God. Do you know what "cdesign proponentists" refers to?

It's completely irrelevant from my standpoint.

Because we're talking about my assertion that historically religious people have had to change their doctrine when it comes face to face with contradictory evidence of science.

I never said trhey didn't.

It would be an appeal to tradition or bandwagon if I were actually supporting those beliefs. In fact, I'm attacking them!

But you're wasting your time with someone who's not defending those beliefs.

ETA: In other words, it's not an appeal to the masses if the proposition I'm trying to support is "this is what the masses profess to believe".

I don't claim to represent the masses on this forum.

ng stuff like the Baltimore Catechism or beliefs that are widely held by theists and theologians to make my case that these things have had to change when confronted with science. (That assertion to support the idea that finding an ET intelligence would force them to change some more. Another example--if God had to incarnate and save another species, wouldn't the creeds that referred to Jesus as the "only begotten Son" of the Father have to be amended?)

Since I don't hold those Trinitarian beliefs you need to debate that with someone who does on the religious forum.

I'm talking about majority beliefs because otherwise, I've found, theists tend to refuse to put forth their actual beliefs or even to deny their own beliefs and turn into deists before my very eyes.

But this thread isn't about religion-is it? Furthermore, its completely legitimate to adopt different philosophical stances on a forum of this kind for the sake of exploring different angles to the same issues. I think its called playing devils advocate for discussion's sake? Happens all the time. Nothing unusual and no one ever makes an issue out of it. So it's a bit unrealistic to vehemently try to deprive a member of that right.

JoeTheJuggler

16th February 2009, 04:02 PM

Of course if you asked them that's the response you might get. But you are asking me.
No, I'm not.

I think a lot of this is a misunderstanding, so let me review a bit:

Someone on this thread asked what the theological ramifications of discovering ET intelligence might be.

I commented that many religious people will have to revise their theology to accommodate this new information, as they have done in the past.

You took issue with it, and I thought were debating on this point. Now I see that you are asserting only that you yourself personally are a believer who will not need to revise his theology to accommodate any new science.

Maybe you took my statement to mean "All religious people" will have to revise their theology. (I mean to check my exact wording, but the forum has been acting sluggishly for me, so I can't do so just now.) If my wording said that, I'm happy to retract that part and make it "Many religious people". I'm pretty sure that was what I intended.

This is why it makes sense to me to show the Baltimore Catechism and to talk about majority religious beliefs and the Catholic Church's doctrine on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, but doesn't to you. (If my assertion was "all believers" you only have to show one example--yourself--that it doesn't apply to.)

I hope that clears up most of this.

I bet you have no problem suspending disbelief when confronted with a good sci fi film where aliens communicate via thoughts. It's just when the God thing is introduced
isn't it?
The willing suspension of disbelief to enjoy a work of fiction is not at all a sign that I actually believe that the fiction is not fiction. It's not all like belief in God. I have never once confused something that is fiction for real life.

Again! What does what people profess to believe have to do with me?
Nothing. See above.

That's certainly proof that it's not your reading--where the phrase the sun stood still just means it seemed like a long day (because even you said that that happens all the time).
I never said that!

When I said that the cosmology used in the Bible has the sun going around the Earth, you said:
Where does it say those things? Joshua was describing what he saw during a battle. That the sun appeared not to move in the sky. Even today we write of the sun setting and rising as if it were the one doing the moving.
I hope the passage I cited shows that this is not a proper reading. Especially the last verse where it says that something like this has never happened before or since--where God obeyed the command of a human. (This referred to Joshua telling God to stop the sun, and then the sun stopping.)

Granted you personally never held the geocentric model as a religion tenet, but plenty of people in the past actually did.

Geocentricity might have been claimed by the Church. But the church also claimed rthe right to skin and burn people alive after ripping out their tongues ad other such nonbiblical practices as being biblically supported. Were they right on that? Of course not. The Church was wrong just as it was wrong in their claim that the Bible supports a geocentric earth. Yes, I know all the counterarguments and interpretations and citations that can be used to make it appear that way.
I agree they were wrong (though perhaps with different point of view than the one you have). My point is, that they didn't admit they were wrong until science force them to. I expect something similar would happen if and when we found ET intelligence.

WRT the Bible never referring to the sun as a star:

Did I say that it did?

You certainly implied that the cosmology used in the Bible was consistent with modern astronomy. It certainly is not.

As for your own personal beliefs, I accept that you have never had to change them to suit science. The modern Catholic Church has no problem, for example, with the fact that the authors of many of the books of the Bible clearly believed in the geocentric model. (They don't claim the Bible is error free in that way, and they recognize that the writing should take into account the language, culture, history, genre etc. of the period in which it was written.)

WRT the "star in the east":

I have no difficulties with that passage.
But you know stars don't behave that way, right? You know they're so far away that it's foolish to speak of them stopping over a palace or a house, right?

I do have difficulties with fish slowly turning into people though.
Who says fish turn slowly into people?
In the theory of evolution, an organism lives and dies the same species. Always. There is no morphing from one to another. This is a childishly simplistic misunderstanding of evolution.

But you're wasting your time with someone who's not defending those beliefs.

Since I don't hold those Trinitarian beliefs you need to debate that with someone who does on the religious forum.
See above.

But this thread isn't about religion-is it? Furthermore, its completely legitimate to adopt different philosophical stances on a forum of this kind for the sake of exploring different angles to the same issues. I think its called playing devils advocate for discussion's sake? Happens all the time. Nothing unusual and no one ever makes an issue out of it. So it's a bit unrealistic to vehemently try to deprive a member of that right.
You've lost me here. Who is trying to deprive whom of any right?

Previously, you were disengaging from discussion on these topics because the views I'm citing don't line up with your own personal views. Now you seem to be saying that you're capable of defending a position even if it's not your own personal belief.

JoeTheJuggler

16th February 2009, 04:40 PM

amb

17th February 2009, 02:07 AM

And the notion that only this 10% of the galaxy is habitable is pure, unsupported conjecture. I've already answered this one.

There is not dearth of heavy metals elsewhere in the galaxy as you had claimed. And the "too much radiation" issue could be resolved any number of ways.

I've also already addressed the notion that a large moon is needed to stabilize a planet's orbit. (It's not.) Are you suggesting that without a large moon a planet's orbit would be unstable? What physics or observations of planets support that notion?
ETA: Are the orbits of Venus and Mars unstable?
Also, as I've said before, even if a large moon is a prerequisite to complex life, as you speculate, there's no argument that says a large moon is impossible elsewhere in the galaxy. It could well be that our solar system is typical (where 1 in 3 of roughly earth-sized planets has a very large moon).

So now we're back to the word "rarer". As I've pointed out this is a relative term. I would agree that intelligent life might be rare enough that we're never likely to encounter another civilization out there, but there could still be hundreds or thousands in our galaxy alone. Here you've at least defined "rarer" as being "rarer than some astrobiologists claim." Do you have any evidence that any astrobiologists claim there is life somewhere? (As far as I know all scientists follow the evidence unless they're just speculating or opining or something. I don't know of any who make a claim for the existence of life when there is no evidence for it. If they do, I agree with you that it's bad science.)

So you're abandoning the claim that we are unique in the galaxy?

I never said we are unique. I have always said we may well be.
Actualy there was a news report in this mornings paper where a scientist who's name I can't remember. [Should have clipped it out] Who said that the chances of another intelligent civilization existing at the same time as us would be an enormous coincidence. The universe is probably teeming with microbial life according to this fellow.

Radrook

17th February 2009, 02:08 AM

No, I'm not.

I think a lot of this is a misunderstanding, so let me review a bit:

Someone on this thread asked what the theological ramifications of discovering ET intelligence might be.

I commented that many religious people will have to revise their theology to accommodate this new information, as they have done in the past.

You took issue with it, and I thought were debating on this point. Now I see that you are asserting only that you yourself personally are a believer who will not need to revise his theology to accommodate any new science.

Maybe you took my statement to mean "All religious people" will have to revise their theology. (I mean to check my exact wording, but the forum has been acting sluggishly for me, so I can't do so just now.) If my wording said that, I'm happy to retract that part and make it "Many religious people". I'm pretty sure that was what I intended.

This is why it makes sense to me to show the Baltimore Catechism and to talk about majority religious beliefs and the Catholic Church's doctrine on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, but doesn't to you. (If my assertion was "all believers" you only have to show one example--yourself--that it doesn't apply to.)

I hope that clears up most of this.

I understand. But I never claimed that the religious wouldn't have to change their theology. So when you argue that some will have to, I wonder what you are trying to prove since I am not arguing against that point. Also, you are confusing Church doctrine with biblical teachings. As I pointed out becfore and as is well-known, they very often were diamerically opposed.

The willing suspension of disbelief to enjoy a work of fiction is not at all a sign that I actually believe that the fiction is not fiction.

Of course not.

It's not all like belief in God. I have never once confused something that is fiction for real life.

I am not talking about confusing reality with fiction. I watch and read and write fiction and don't confuse one with the other. However, what many people proclaim as outlandish if it is claimed that an ID might be able to do it is accepted as a possibility if you change the ID to an alien. That's the mentality I am referring to.

When I said that the cosmology used in the Bible has the sun going around the Earth....

That's what you choose to derive from what was said. There are many things written in the Bible that people said either because they were deluded or under demon possession. Are we to take those as Bible teachings as well? The whole book of Job is full of false arguments which Job's tormentors used against him. Anyone can go to that book, arbitrarily pick any of those statements and claim that the Bible teaches it as truth not as utterances from misguided individuals. So even if Joshua was stating what he saw in the belief that what he saw was what you say he thought he saw it would only prove Joshua's ignorance.

I hope the passage I cited shows that this is not a proper reading. Especially the last verse where it says that something like this has never happened before or since--where God obeyed the command of a human. (This referred to Joshua telling God to stop the sun, and then the sun stopping.)

Well, if it happened before-- when? If it happened since-- when?

Granted you personally never held the geocentric model as a religion tenet, but plenty of people in the past actually did.

So what does that have to do with the thread's subject? Furthermore, I never claimed that they didn't. So if you are trying to convince someone it definitely shouldn't be me.

I agree they were wrong (though perhaps with different point of view than the one you have). My point is, that they didn't admit they were wrong until science force them to. I expect something similar would happen if and when we found ET intelligence.

Isn't that what you do? Admit you are wrong when science proves you are wrong? Actually, there is nothing wrong in admitting one didn't really understand what one was reading when the truth comes out whether the truth be revealed via biblical research or science.

You certainly implied that the cosmology used in the Bible was consistent with modern astronomy. It certainly is not.

I gave three specific examples which you obviously don't find compelling. Actually, I have discussed this subject extensively on this forum before and have found the evidence presented often constitutes a wrenching of meaning via striving to deprive biblical authors from using simile and metaphor. For example the statement of "four corners of the earth" is taken as an indication that a four-cornered earth is being literally referred to when the expression simply means throughout the whole world. It's even used today and people using it don't literally mean four corners. Also, regardless of the fact that the introduction to the book where the statement appears tells us at the outset that the information would be given via symbols. That is shunted aside as irrelevant.

Then they contradict themselves when they deem it convenient by saying that people at that time saw the earth as a flat circle. If so, why refer to it as having four corners unless the reference isn't literal?

Then writers are assumed ignorant of what previous biblical writers had written and are accused of totally ignoring it and proceeding to contradict it regardless of what reader reaction might be.

People living during those times are depicted as uncaring or as being oblivious to all the scriptural mangling and fakeries going on even though these same people depended on those writings for guidance and were very keen on anyone tampering with them.

And a host of other things that gets old and tiresome after a while. That's why I no longer waste my time in that kind of discussion.

As for your own personal beliefs, I accept that you have never had to change them to suit science.

I have to change my personal beliefs to suite science all the time. In fact, that's why I subscribe to a science magazine. So that I can keep up with the current advances in science and change my views accordingly.

The modern Catholic Church has no problem, for example, with the fact that the authors of many of the books of the Bible clearly believed in the geocentric model. (They don't claim the Bible is error free in that way, and they recognize that the writing should take into account the language, culture, history, genre etc. of the period in which it was written.)

The authors of such books as you mention, must have read where Isaiah wrote that the earth rested on nothing. Isn't that the way it looks from space? As if it were resting on nothing? They also had read that it appears as circular since that's the way Isaiah described it. Doesn't appear circular from space? Of course Isaiah spoke of God extending the heavens like a gauze. This they might not have understood since when we look up it doesn't seem to be stretching itself out that way. Only after the red shift knowledge did we realize it is being stretched out like a gauze. I know, there have been countless efforts to discredit this by giving the statements other interpretations. But I don't find them compelling.

BTW
You are confusing the secretaries with the author.

But you know stars don't behave that way, right? You know they're so far away that it's foolish to speak of them stopping over a palace or a house, right?

Well, you claim that the Catholic Church and other theologians interpret biblical data within cultural and historical context. So if we follow the same rule then we can understand that any light appearing in the sky would have been mistaken for a star.

Who says fish turn slowly into people?
In the theory of evolution, an organism lives and dies the same species. Always. There is no morphing from one to another. This is a childishly simplistic misunderstanding of evolution.

No, I understand what evolution teaches perfectly well. The operative word here is "slowly". But no matter how slowly we go, it still comes to the claim that our ancestors were fish. Or if you prefer, fishlike. Of course after the fishlike ancestors we have piglike ones and the most recent the supposed ape-like ones. In between all those we have other such outlandish claims of ancestry. Why you take umbrage with me describing it that way is beyond me since that is exactly what you believe.

You've lost me here. Who is trying to deprive whom of any right? Previously, you were disengaging from discussion of these topics because the views I'm citing don't line up with your own personal views. Now you seem to be saying that you're capable of defending a position even if it's not your own personal belief.

What I'm saying is that it is perfectly legitimate to try to defend certain philosophical points for the sake of honing one's skills in argumentation. For example, I was once given the option either to defend those involved in the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident in Russia or to condemn them ass irresponsible. I chose to defend them as innocent of negligence. But I could just as easily have tilted the essay the other way and condemned them as guilty. The truth of course isn't always a simple black or white answer. Sometimes the truth lies somewhere in the gray area. But since I wasn't assigned to support a gray area I had to take a stand pro or con. Given the choice of proving a gray area might have revealed perhaps the real truth. But that would have required a different approach albeit a more balanced on depending on objectivity. What I'm trying to say is that in a forum such as this sometimes one assumes a pro or a con in order to delve more deeply into a subject from another angle. Testing the waters as it were and not because one is being hypocritical or striving to deceive or otherwise hoodwink.

Radrook

17th February 2009, 03:18 AM

JoeTheJuggler

17th February 2009, 12:48 PM

The passage means that's what Joshua saw happening and expressed it exactly as he saw it happen. How else was he supposed to express it? Even today knowing the the solar system isn't geocentric-if I saw the phenomenon that way I'd express it exactly like he did. How would you describe it?

I would never see the sun standing still in the sky because it can't happen, so I would never have cause to describe it.

I would describe this account as a work of fiction written by people who held a geocentric view of the natural world.

Now--do you think the Earth's rotation stopped and then restarted resulting in what Joshua saw?

And do you think that is consistent with reality?

JoeTheJuggler

17th February 2009, 12:54 PM

I never said we are unique. I have always said we may well be.
And I agreed and said there may also be thousands of tech-using ET civilizations in our galaxy. Do you accept that as well? If you don't, then you are in fact asserting that we are unique.

Actualy there was a news report in this mornings paper where a scientist who's name I can't remember. [Should have clipped it out] Who said that the chances of another intelligent civilization existing at the same time as us would be an enormous coincidence. The universe is probably teeming with microbial life according to this fellow.
Yes, I'm aware of these views. From what I've seen, they're based on wild assumptions and unproven speculation.

There's no evidence to support the idea that the universe is probably teeming with microbial life but that there are vanishingly small chances of there being other intelligent civilizations. It's just speculation.

arthwollipot

17th February 2009, 05:50 PM

Now--do you think the Earth's rotation stopped and then restarted resulting in what Joshua saw?Not only would the earth's rotation about its own axis have to have stopped, but its revolution around the sun also, or there would have been some perceptible apparently motion of the sun in the sky.

What mechanism could possibly cause such a thing?

JoeTheJuggler

17th February 2009, 06:35 PM

Not only would the earth's rotation about its own axis have to have stopped, but its revolution around the sun also, or there would have been some perceptible apparently motion of the sun in the sky.

What mechanism could possibly cause such a thing?

Especially without causing massive cataclysm that would pretty much wipe humans off the face of the Earth.

arthwollipot

17th February 2009, 09:03 PM

Especially without causing massive cataclysm that would pretty much wipe humans off the face of the Earth.Of course, God being... well, God... could easily make this happen without any trouble at all because His power is unlimited. If he wants the Earth to stop, then by golly it stops!

So the question becomes - why was this extra-long day not reported by any other civilisation on the planet at the time? I would have thought it would be unusual enough to show up in the Egyptian records. And the Chinese have been obsessive record-keepers for millennia - why don't they make any mention of this phenomenon?

JoeTheJuggler

17th February 2009, 09:57 PM

Of course, God being... well, God... could easily make this happen without any trouble at all because His power is unlimited. If he wants the Earth to stop, then by golly it stops!

But I believe Radrook would reject the ability to do things that are logically impossible (like squaring the circle) as being something an omnipotent being could do. Surely stopping the Earth's rotation and restarting it without the cataclysms would be similarly impossible. (I put that right up there with ghosts that walk through walls--where walls are immaterial to the ghost, but the floor is not.)

So the question becomes - why was this extra-long day not reported by any other civilisation on the planet at the time? I would have thought it would be unusual enough to show up in the Egyptian records. And the Chinese have been obsessive record-keepers for millennia - why don't they make any mention of this phenomenon?
That's also good evidence that the story is inconsistent with reality.

amb

18th February 2009, 01:33 AM

Radrook

18th February 2009, 02:53 AM

I would never see the sun standing still in the sky because it can't happen, so I would never have cause to describe it.

Many things that were once thought impossible are currently happening.

I would describe this account as a work of fiction written by people who held a geocentric view of the natural world.

I believe that you have brought this to my attention several times. I also believe I understood you the first time you told me. Why the repetition?

Now--do you think the Earth's rotation stopped and then restarted resulting in what Joshua saw?

Well, if indeed the ID is almighty, and is in full control of all the forces he created, then I don't really see a problem. Even an ID that isn't almighty but merely far more advanced technologically than we are could have pulled that off and convinced the observers that what they described was happening.

He could simply have made it appear as if these things were occurring from the vantage point of the geographical area Joshua was in. Sort of a localized planetarium type effect. In short, the request was made but how the ID brought about is anybody's guess. I tend to think he made it a local phenomenon.

And do you think that is consistent with reality?

What is reality?

If I would have told you a few years back that stars in the outer fringes of galaxies can have escape velocities with no detectable means to keep them in orbit and yet they stay there you would have classified it as being out of touch with reality. Actually, if we can't even prove that the exterior world isn't a brain in a vat generated phenomenon, or we don't yet know if other dimensions exist, or the very nature of our universe which might or might not be merely one among billions of others. In view of our profound ignorance in reference to such things, can we be justified in being dogmatic about what is and what isn't possible or what does and what doesn't exist beyond the realm of our senses.

So from a purely metaphysical standpoint we shouldn't be too hasty in glibly tagging things as ultimately real. We can say that within the parameters of what we know it appears that such and such is real, Or it appears as if such and such is highly improbable. But the certainty that you are claiming is simply hubris since you can't really know what you are claiming to now for a with the certainty that you are claiming it.

BTW
You are being inconsistent in first saying that the Biblical events need to be understood within the cultural historical context and then insisting that Joshuah should have described what he observed with our cultural terminology.

arthwollipot

18th February 2009, 04:10 PM

Tell me of one single event in the bible that's constitant with reality. There is none.
There is even some doubt that Moses himself ever existed, as Abraham didn't as well.
Certainly the Egyptians make no reference to a Moses.Numbers 22.

That's totally real (http://www.thebricktestament.com//the_wilderness/balaams_talking_donkey/nm22_28.html).

JoeTheJuggler

18th February 2009, 08:49 PM

There are many things written in the Bible that people said either because they were deluded or under demon possession.
Deluded I could buy, but you have any evidence of demonic possession?

I hope the passage I cited shows that this is not a proper reading. Especially the last verse where it says that something like this has never happened before or since--where God obeyed the command of a human.
Well, if it happened before-- when? If it happened since-- when?
Did you miss the word "never"?

I'm tired of trying to converse with you. It's just too. . . surreal.

JoeTheJuggler

18th February 2009, 08:54 PM

He could simply have made it appear as if these things were occurring from the vantage point of the geographical area Joshua was in. Sort of a localized planetarium type effect. In short, the request was made but how the ID brought about is anybody's guess. I tend to think he made it a local phenomenon.
So you think the notion that God built a planetarium dome over Jericho and its environs and projected a sky on it, and that that's a more reasonable reading of this passage than mine (it's just stuff that was made up)?

What is reality?
I thought you said you had no problem distinguish fantasy/fiction and reality.

(Though your question about my ability to suspend disbelief during a sci-fi movie but not for the existence of God in reality sure made it look as though you have problems separating the two.)

If you don't know what "reality" is, we don't share enough conventional understanding of language to communicate with each other.

amb

18th February 2009, 11:53 PM

Getting back to topic................

How many planets exists which might support life? Indeed, what is required for life to exist? How does life start? How does it evolve, and what fabulous creatures can evolution produce? How often do intelligent creatures appear in the giant tapestry of life? It is exactly these questions, and all of them, which are being addressed by the scientists of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe.

Directed by Dr. Frank Drake, the center brings together leading researchers in a field often called "astrobiology," the study of life in the universe.

Our team focuses on a wide set of disciplines ranging from observing and modeling the precursors of life in the depths of outer space to studies of Earth, where we are attempting to learn more about how life began and how its many diverse forms have survived and evolved.

Appropriate to the sweeping scope of this research, we have many partners in our work including NASA, the National Science Foundation, and major universities.

Source: Seti Institute.

Radrook

19th February 2009, 08:08 AM

Deluded I could buy, but you have any evidence of demonic possession?

Well, that subject would further deviate the thread. Sorry I mentioned it. It belongs on the religion forum in which I no longer participate. So I shouldn't even have mentioned it on this one.

Did you miss the word "never"?

How do you understand the words "never" "before" and "since" and the how rhjey function in that passage?

I'm tired of trying to converse with you.

Not obligatory.

It's just too. . . surreal.

That's how I view many beliefs you put forth as indisputable fact.

Radrook

19th February 2009, 08:23 AM

So you think the notion that God built a planetarium dome over Jericho and its environs and projected a sky on it, and that that's a more reasonable reading of this passage than mine (it's just stuff that was made up)?

I was responding to the impossibility of the event as Joshua perceived it taking place within the context of the biblical. Which is the way the persons who were positing impossibility were doing and yet you have no problem with their statements. If indeed no alternative explanations are wanted, then why set up the scenario for discussion in the first place? Is my response reasonable? Well, within the parameters of the hypothetical-of course it is.

First, please note that the ones mentioning an almighty God or god, or the supernatural are the atheists and agnostics-not me. I am merely following their hypothetical and responding in accordance with the givens they posit. The ID I posited need not be God a god, or any other supernatural being. That scenario was pout forth by those who insist on seeing it that way. So if indeed you have a beef with the hypothetical you are having issues with the wrong person.

I thought you said you had no problem distinguish fantasy/fiction and reality.

Do all the professors who ask the same question have a problem distinguishing reality from fantasy? Or are you reserving that criterion for me?

(Though your question about my ability to suspend disbelief during a sci-fi movie but not for the existence of God in reality sure made it look as though you have problems separating the two.)

If that's the meaning you derived from my clear statements then you are having English comprehension problems which need remedial attention.

If you don't know what "reality" is, we don't share enough conventional understanding of language to communicate with each other.

I agree!

arthwollipot

21st February 2009, 06:21 AM

JoeTheJuggler

21st February 2009, 01:17 PM

Is all of this a quote from the SETI website? Quote tags and a link would be nice. . .

Getting back to topic................

How many planets exists which might support life? Indeed, what is required for life to exist? How does life start? How does it evolve, and what fabulous creatures can evolution produce? How often do intelligent creatures appear in the giant tapestry of life? It is exactly these questions, and all of them, which are being addressed by the scientists of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe.

Directed by Dr. Frank Drake, the center brings together leading researchers in a field often called "astrobiology," the study of life in the universe.

Our team focuses on a wide set of disciplines ranging from observing and modeling the precursors of life in the depths of outer space to studies of Earth, where we are attempting to learn more about how life began and how its many diverse forms have survived and evolved.

Appropriate to the sweeping scope of this research, we have many partners in our work including NASA, the National Science Foundation, and major universities.
Yes. We don't know.

I'm pretty sure that's what my position has been all along--we don't know.

I reject as unsupported the claim that we are unique in the galaxy.

I'm fine with the proposition that we may be unique in the galaxy, since it does nothing to rule out the proposition that there may also be hundreds or thousands of ET intelligences in our galaxy.

So, do you accept the proposition that there may be hundreds or thousands of ET intelligences in our galaxy?

(I ask because your earlier arguments seemed to say that you rejected that possibility, which seems to contradict your denying that you were making the claim that we are unique in the galaxy.)

JoeTheJuggler

21st February 2009, 01:23 PM

Radrook

21st February 2009, 06:47 PM

....having a planet at just the right habitable zone as is Earth to allow life to evolve over 4.5 billion years?

If indeed earth-zone is the only one permitting life, then why is NASA speaking about maybe finding life on Mars, Europa and Titan? These aren't earth-habital-zone planets.

amb

22nd February 2009, 01:50 AM

Is all of this a quote from the SETI website? Quote tags and a link would be nice. . .

Yes. We don't know.

I'm pretty sure that's what my position has been all along--we don't know.

I reject as unsupported the claim that we are unique in the galaxy.

I'm fine with the proposition that we may be unique in the galaxy, since it does nothing to rule out the proposition that there may also be hundreds or thousands of ET intelligences in our galaxy.

So, do you accept the proposition that there may be hundreds or thousands of ET intelligences in our galaxy?

(I ask because your earlier arguments seemed to say that you rejected that possibility, which seems to contradict your denying that you were making the claim that we are unique in the galaxy.)

I ask you to at least have a look at the hypothesis of Rare Earth This book is very well researched and is now available on the net for zilch.
Peter D Ward and professor Donald Brownlee are no pseudo-scientists but genuine researches of repute. Since the release of this book, not one scientist has been able to shoot down their hypothesis as mumbo jumbo.
The belief that the universe is teeming with intelligent life is an act of faith.
Nowhere do these authors dispute that the universe is teeming with life. But this life is microbial.

JoeTheJuggler

22nd February 2009, 08:18 PM

I ask you to at least have a look at the hypothesis of Rare Earth This book is very well researched and is now available on the net for zilch.
The link you provided before was not the entire book, but just samples. What I saw of it looked pretty bad.

Peter D Ward and professor Donald Brownlee are no pseudo-scientists but genuine researches of repute. Since the release of this book, not one scientist has been able to shoot down their hypothesis as mumbo jumbo.
So if they are not pseudoscientists spouting mumbo-jumbo does it follow that their hypothesis is correct?

Here's a review of the book (http://patriot.net/~jlazio/essays/review3.html) that concludes:
I found it not only to be not convincing, but not particularly thought provoking and in some places sloppy almost to the point of being wrong.
Here's another one (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1051/1) (I'm just going in line of the google results of "rare earth criticism") that contends that it was a decent theory until recent results in discovering so many extra solar planets have shot it down.

The third one (http://www.setileague.org/reviews/rarearth.htm) is on a site called SETIleague and obviously not very warm to it either:
In Rare Earth, the authors present the theories they favor as complete and widely accepted, masking the fact that many are controversial (for example, whether star metallicity is as rare as they describe and whether Cambrian Ediacarans represent additional extinct phyla). Furthermore, I spotted errors in my field of expertise (conflation of transcription and translation, a 20-fold exaggeration of the number of human genes -- both pertaining to the crucial concept of complexity) and a howler regarding the rotations of Mars and Venus (which are not locked, as the authors assert in their haste to make Earth unique in the solar system). These missteps make me wonder whether the authors misquoted additional facts instrumental to their hypothesis.

The fourth hit was the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis), which includes a number of different criticisms of the theory.

The belief that the universe is teeming with intelligent life is an act of faith.
And you keep setting this up as the only alternative to the "we are probably unique" position. It is not.

The fact is, we don't know how common ET life (microbial or complex) in the universe is. There's no reason to think that conditions are so exceptional here that there is something special or unique about the Earth. I reject the assertion that ET intelligence is probably common (again, see my repeated issues with the fact that terms like "common" and "rare" are relative), but I also reject the assertion that we are probably unique in the galaxy.

I think the rare Earth hypothesis basically describes how complex life on Earth came about. It may or may not be a good description of what was required for we humans to arise. Even if it is, the authors are wrong to assert 1) that these are the only conditions under which intelligent/complex life could arise and 2) that these conditions aren't likely to occur elsewhere in the galaxy.

Nowhere do these authors dispute that the universe is teeming with life. But this life is microbial.
And this is pure speculation. It's little more than an opinion.

LarianLeQuella

23rd February 2009, 12:22 PM

It just occurred to me. Regarding the story of the sun stopping in the sky in Joshua:

if you weren't saying that the passage means the sun only appeared to hold still because it seemed like a long day, then you might be arguing that the Earth stopped rotating.

Is that what you meant? Surely you realize that that's as incompatible with reality as the geocentric model!

That whole story just reminds me how primitive the writers of those fables were. The entire story is written as if the sun is a small, localized object that does the traveling accross the sky.

Not only that... If this event had happened, there were a great many civilizations that observed the sky much more closely than the writers. Yet they seem not to have noticed this incredibly peculiar celestial event at all. No other civilization says that at some point the sky stopped moving altogether (and isn't there even a passage of the sun reversing track).

SURELY someone woud have noticed?

Yah, primitive fables...

And again, people bring up this mythical habitable zone... That's only applicable to earth life really. We jsut don't know. Come on, say it with me, "I don't know." It's actually quite liberating. However, becasue we don't know something doesn't mean we can't speculate within the laws of chemistry. There's more to your universe than is dreamed of in your philosophy (to butcher the bard).

This is absolutely an area where we need more datapoints. Just because we don't actually have those datapoints yet, we should stop looking? :jaw-dropp

amb

24th February 2009, 02:07 AM

The link you provided before was not the entire book, but just samples. What I saw of it looked pretty bad.

So if they are not pseudoscientists spouting mumbo-jumbo does it follow that their hypothesis is correct?

Here's a review of the book (http://patriot.net/~jlazio/essays/review3.html) that concludes:

Here's another one (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1051/1) (I'm just going in line of the google results of "rare earth criticism") that contends that it was a decent theory until recent results in discovering so many extra solar planets have shot it down.

The third one (http://www.setileague.org/reviews/rarearth.htm) is on a site called SETIleague and obviously not very warm to it either:

The fourth hit was the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis), which includes a number of different criticisms of the theory.

And you keep setting this up as the only alternative to the "we are probably unique" position. It is not.

The fact is, we don't know how common ET life (microbial or complex) in the universe is. There's no reason to think that conditions are so exceptional here that there is something special or unique about the Earth. I reject the assertion that ET intelligence is probably common (again, see my repeated issues with the fact that terms like "common" and "rare" are relative), but I also reject the assertion that we are probably unique in the galaxy.

I think the rare Earth hypothesis basically describes how complex life on Earth came about. It may or may not be a good description of what was required for we humans to arise. Even if it is, the authors are wrong to assert 1) that these are the only conditions under which intelligent/complex life could arise and 2) that these conditions aren't likely to occur elsewhere in the galaxy.

And this is pure speculation. It's little more than an opinion.
(After I finished this review, I read the review by C. P. McKay in the 2000 April 28 issue of Science. McKay is one of the premier astrobiologists. His review seems lukewarm. He describes the authors as "[making] the case (if not always convincingly) that the situation on our Earth is optimal for the devlopment of complex life." Later he also writes that "we have only one example of life" and that the "assessment of [the] probability" for the development of life "is uncertain at best." He concludes that "theories of life and evolution" should guide us but not constrain us"---they may be wrong. In this spirit Rare Earth provides a sobering [...] perspective in just how difficult it might be for complex life [...] to arise.")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. P. Mckay isn't as harsh on the hypothesis as is the reviewer is he?

JoeTheJuggler

24th February 2009, 10:32 AM

He describes the authors as "[making] the case (if not always convincingly) that the situation on our Earth is optimal for the devlopment of complex life." Later he also writes that "we have only one example of life" and that the "assessment of [the] probability" for the development of life "is uncertain at best." He concludes that "theories of life and evolution" should guide us but not constrain us"---they may be wrong. In this spirit Rare Earth provides a sobering [...] perspective in just how difficult it might be for complex life [...] to arise.")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. P. Mckay isn't as harsh on the hypothesis as is the reviewer is he?

No, but I certainly agree with his Mckay's opinion. The fact is, we don't know. The latest findings (stuff we've learned AFTER 2000) of the abundance of extra solar planets leads us to think that planets are fairly abundant in the galaxy. The case for the Rare Earth claim hasn't been made. So, as it stands, it's just speculation. If you, or anyone else, claims that it is something we know, you're wrong.

The danger is in extended conclusions far beyond the data. In the SETI program, for example, we've been listening to spots in the sky for some 30 years now. Even with a telescope 100 times the sensitivity of Arecibo, we would not be able to detect "leakage" signals (like our own TV and radio broadcasts) beyond the limit of our own solar system. So what can we can conclude from that?

JoeTheJuggler

25th February 2009, 06:59 AM

A book offering very nearly the opposite point of view of the Rare Earth hypothesis has been in the news (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/25/galaxy.planets.kepler/index.html) lately:

There may be 100 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, or one for every sun-type star in the galaxy, said Alan Boss, an astronomer with the Carnegie Institution and author of the new book "The Crowded Universe: The Search for Living Planets."

Another group has done some modeling of the universe:

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland constructed a computer model to create a synthetic galaxy with billions of stars and planets. They then studied how life evolved under various conditions in this virtual world, using a supercomputer to crunch the results.

In a paper published recently in the International Journal of Astrobiology, the researchers concluded that based on what they saw, at least 361 intelligent civilizations have emerged in the Milky Way since its creation, and as many as 38,000 may have formed.

Duncan Forgan, a doctoral candidate at the university who led the study, said he was surprised by the hardiness of life on these other worlds.

"The computer model takes into account what we refer to as resetting or extinction events. The classic example is the asteroid impact that may have wiped out the dinosaurs," Forgan said.

"I half-expected these events to disallow the rise of intelligence, and yet civilizations seemed to flourish."

Forgan readily admits the results are an educated guess at best, since there are still many unanswered questions about how life formed on Earth and only limited information about the 330 "exoplanets" -- those circling sun-like stars outside the solar system -- discovered so far.

amb

26th February 2009, 12:41 AM

Not very convincing are they? Microbial life is agreed to, but intelligence? That's altogether a different question. I will more than likely buy this book when released in my locality as I love nothing better than reading such books. I'm not pig headed, in fact far from it, show me evidence that's hard to refute, and I'll change my mind.
The point is. Out of the billions of life forms that have evolved on this perfect Earth, only one has developed a mind enough to ask or discuss this very subject.
Why would matters be any different on other worlds.

JoeTheJuggler

26th February 2009, 05:40 AM

I'm not pig headed, in fact far from it, show me evidence that's hard to refute, and I'll change my mind.
That's where I stand too. Again, the ONLY conclusion right now is that we don't know.

I've pointed out that I'm OK with the assertion that we might be unique in the galaxy, but you still haven't answered whether you accept the statement that there also might be hundreds or thousands of ET intelligence civilizations in the galaxy.

If you don't, then your assertion is not one of "might be" but "is". If that's the case, the burden of evidence is on you to support that conclusion.

The point is. Out of the billions of life forms that have evolved on this perfect Earth, only one has developed a mind enough to ask or discuss this very subject.
No, that's not the point at all. In fact, this is an argument you raised already and I've already pointed out that it doesn't help your case in the least.

If you want to re-do the Drake Equation to calculate the number of intelligent species as a ratio of total species (rather than as a ratio of intelligent species to the number of planets with life), that's fine, but it doesn't help your argument. If you treat the Earth as 1:some billions rather than 1:1, just make sure you use the correct second term (number of species in the galaxy, rather than number of planets).

It does nothing to further the claim that we are unique.

Why would matters be any different on other worlds.
Indeed, why would they? So if you get one intelligent species out of a planet, and if it turns out there are a great many Earth-like planets, then chances are you'll have a great many intelligent species.

See. If you want to say other worlds aren't different than the Earth, that's what you come up with.

Unless you're saying other Earth-like planets are NOT like the Earth and they don't give you a gazillion species of life on each one.

But why would matters be any different on other worlds?

amb

27th February 2009, 01:31 AM

All I'm saying is that intelligence is not a given. In the one example we have to study we know the fluke that produced homo sapien. Had it not being a fluke, there would surely be other species like Chimps that would also have a civilization and computors, just as we have. Whales and dolphins are said to be very intelligent. Then why haven't they built some kind of defence against whalers. Could it be that they have reached the pinnacle of their intelligence millions of years ago. Meanwhile homo sapiens is still evolving higher faculties.
Could it be that the reason we haven't heard from ET is because it is still in a microbial state?
Questions that really, we at present still don't know. That's where we are in agreement.

paximperium

27th February 2009, 03:15 AM

Whales and dolphins are said to be very intelligent. Then why haven't they built some kind of defence against whalers. Because their intelligence is not directed at tool making.

Could it be that they have reached the pinnacle of their intelligence millions of years ago.
That is inherently false. There is no "pinacle" of anything in evolution. There is only the most efficient for survival in a given environment.

Meanwhile homo sapiens is still evolving higher faculties.
That is an unfounded assertion.

Could it be that the reason we haven't heard from ET is because it is still in a microbial state?
Sure.

JoeTheJuggler

27th February 2009, 08:07 AM

All I'm saying is that intelligence is not a given.
I don't believe that's all you're saying.

If it were, you would acknowledge that just as it "may be" that we are unique in the galaxy, it also may be that there are hundreds or thousands of ET intelligent civilizations in the galaxy.

If you reject the latter possibility, you are in fact making a stronger claim that you're willing to defend.

If you're being honest, then I think you're arguing against a straw man. I don't think any reasonable person takes intelligence "as a given".

Questions that really, we at present still don't know. That's where we are in agreement.
If you believe that, then why won't you admit that there may also be hundreds or thousands of ET intelligent civilizations in the galaxy?

If you reject that possibility, you are claiming to know something that we don't know. If that's the case, you lack the integrity to defend the position you espouse.

Radrook

27th February 2009, 10:09 AM

SURELY someone woud have noticed?

That assumes it wasn't an observed local phenomenon.

paximperium

27th February 2009, 10:12 AM

That assumes it wasn't an observed local phenomenon.
Oh do tell. Tell us about your assumption and how it could've been possible?

JoeTheJuggler

27th February 2009, 10:15 AM

That assumes it wasn't an observed local phenomenon.

Yes, I assume anything involving the Sun is not a local phenomenon.

ETA: In the cosmology of the people who wrote Joshua, the Sun was small and close and went around the Earth. They were wrong.

amb

28th February 2009, 01:07 AM

Because their intelligence is not directed at tool making.

That is inherently false. There is no "pinacle" of anything in evolution. There is only the most efficient for survival in a given environment.

That is an unfounded assertion.

Sure.

Why has homo sapiens developed far more intelligence than he will ever need for survival? The animal kingdom live in the same eviroment as homo sapien yet for millions of years have shown to be static brain wise. Don't you think that the 'fluke' hypothesis regarding H/S may have a kernal of truth?
Why, only man has developed tool making abilities. And space travel.
Yes I'm aware that some animals and birds have very simple tool making abilities as well, but it's like comparing a dog's brain to a human one.

JoeTheJuggler

28th February 2009, 08:01 AM

Why has homo sapiens developed far more intelligence than he will ever need for survival?
How do you know we have? That's a really odd question.

Our intelligence, I think, is largely an advantage to living in very complex social groups.

ETA: Our mental faculties (language, pattern recognition, ability to infer agency and intent, etc.) give us a enormous selective advantage.

Why, only man has developed tool making abilities.
Man is not the only animal to develop tool making abilities. There's no point in asking why when it's not so.

Yes I'm aware that some animals and birds have very simple tool making abilities as well, but it's like comparing a dog's brain to a human one.
No, it's like comparing other tool making animals to the top (existing) tool making animal.

In fact, there were most likely other species of hominid that made tools in the past. Intelligence exists (and existed) on a continuum with no large breaks. The big advantage that humans have that made our technology really take off is extra-somatic memory (writing and such).

Sounds like you could do with a good class in evolutionary biology and anthropology. I remember the university I went to had a good one called "human origins".

amb

1st March 2009, 02:48 AM

If you factor in that our universe has approximately 100 billion galaxies, each with their own suns, moons, and planets, you should guess that the odds are in the favor that their is. Just because we do not have the evidence that there is does NOT mean that we can conclude that there are no other life forms out there. Perhaps the other life forms aren't intelligent, just animals. If we have bacteria here on Earth that thrive in an enviornment of pure battery acid, life elsewhere can do the same. We have been sending out radio signals for about 60 years now. Those signals haven't even traveled 1/4 of the way across our own Milky Way galaxy. Scientists are discovering planets within our galaxy in the hundreds each year. How could we possibly say that there is no life elsewhere or any possibility of life elsewhere, when we can't even see or get close to the other planets distant from ours. We may even have other life forms within our own galaxy on one of Jupiter's moons. But it's either very primitive or microbial life. Remember, don't ever shut off your own imagination or beliefs just because there is some other person that knows nothing of Astrophysics to sway your opinion. My opinion on the subject--the odds are in the favor that there is microbial life elsewhere. Problem is, we will never be able to reach it because of the light-year distances that are between us; Moreover, everything is flying even further away from us at colossal speeds.

Source: Wiki answers.

LarianLeQuella

1st March 2009, 06:46 AM

That assumes it wasn't an observed local phenomenon.

Exactly WTF does that even mean? Or are you part of the www.geocentricity.com crowd? :eek:

LarianLeQuella

1st March 2009, 07:08 AM

We have been sending out radio signals for about 60 years now. Those signals haven't even traveled 1/4 of the way across our own Milky Way galaxy.

Try 0.05% (quite a long ways from 25%). As for the planet hunter folks, most (i.e. not all) have been inside 300 light years (0.25% of the glalaxy).

These are rough calculations, so I may be off by a bit, but even just what LITTLE we even really know about our own galaxy, not to mention about any types of different biology and intelligence... I just hate to see the sort of statements that people make asserting that there couldn't possibly be, or that at best it's not intelligent. We just don't have the data to draw that conclusion. And since we haven't found any more data, considering how little we've actually looked, and thus conclude it's a wasted effort is just assanine!

I sincerely would like for us to find something, but until we either DO, or can conclusively say there is none, we MUST contend with, "I don't know!"

JoeTheJuggler

1st March 2009, 09:13 AM

So is some of this post from Wiki answers? If so, you should really quote it or something.

I'm sure all of it isn't, because Wiki probably wouldn't use "their" instead of "there".

At any rate, can you simply answer my question--do you accept that there may be hundreds or thousands of ET intelligent civilizations in our galaxy?

It sounds like you do, but you never really say that. If you don't, then you are arguing that you somehow know we are unique in the galaxy and not just that we might be.

If you factor in that our universe has approximately 100 billion galaxies, each with their own suns, moons, and planets, you should guess that the odds are in the favor that their is. Just because we do not have the evidence that there is does NOT mean that we can conclude that there are no other life forms out there. Perhaps the other life forms aren't intelligent, just animals. If we have bacteria here on Earth that thrive in an enviornment of pure battery acid, life elsewhere can do the same. We have been sending out radio signals for about 60 years now. Those signals haven't even traveled 1/4 of the way across our own Milky Way galaxy. Scientists are discovering planets within our galaxy in the hundreds each year. How could we possibly say that there is no life elsewhere or any possibility of life elsewhere, when we can't even see or get close to the other planets distant from ours. We may even have other life forms within our own galaxy on one of Jupiter's moons. But it's either very primitive or microbial life. Remember, don't ever shut off your own imagination or beliefs just because there is some other person that knows nothing of Astrophysics to sway your opinion. My opinion on the subject--the odds are in the favor that there is microbial life elsewhere. Problem is, we will never be able to reach it because of the light-year distances that are between us; Moreover, everything is flying even further away from us at colossal speeds.

Source: Wiki answers.

Regarding the highlighted bit: I agree that even if there are hundreds or thousands of ET intelligent civilizations in the galaxy, we aren't likely to encounter them.

Everything within our galaxy is not flying further away from us at colossal speeds. Gravity holds things together locally. (Can you imagine if the distance between the Earth and the Sun were increasing? Or the distance between two points within your body?) Imagine expansion as the increase in space between galaxies.

amb

1st March 2009, 11:33 PM

True. But the galaxies aren't. The distance between them is increasing by the second.
Physicist/author Paul Davies said as much when he stated: Seti is not a complete waste of money, but the odds of finding another civilization are million to one. Or words to that effect.

paximperium

2nd March 2009, 12:17 AM

True. But the galaxies aren't. The distance between them is increasing by the second.
This is only occurring between our galaxy and galaxies that are not bound together by gravity(ie, galaxies that are very far away), in fact the Milky Way will collide and merge with the Andromeda Galaxy in a few Billion years.

Radrook

2nd March 2009, 09:06 AM

Exactly WTF does that even mean? Or are you part of the www.geocentricity.com crowd? :eek:

It means exactly what it says in plain English. That you ignore possibilities in order to reach what you erroneously consider inevitable conclusions. Sure, they are inevitable. Only under the premise you narrow-mindedly set up. That's basic logic. Validity under a given premise doesn't constitute nor guarantee cogent reasoning.

BTW

The only crowd I'm part of is the anti-pop-goes-the weasel abiogenesis theory crowd.

Lonewulf

2nd March 2009, 10:41 AM

This is only occurring between our galaxy and galaxies that are not bound together by gravity(ie, galaxies that are very far away), in fact the Milky Way will collide and merge with the Andromeda Galaxy in a few Billion years.

Ah yeah, good point. There's been some other galaxies that have collided, and have provided us with a hell of a light show!

paximperium

2nd March 2009, 11:06 AM

It means exactly what it says in plain English. That you ignore possibilities in order to reach what you erroneously consider inevitable conclusions.
Which continues to be a BS argument. You are attempting to claim that religious belief is somehow "factual" and "scientific" and attacking science for not being to test the untestable.

No, science is limited to be able to test the natural world. Anything that interacts with the natural world can be tested, if not now then later. If something is untestable, it belongs in the realm of the abstract, fantasy or does not exist.

Sure, they are inevitable. Only under the premise you narrow-mindedly set up. The irony and hypocrisy of this statement is pretty amazing.

That's basic logic. Validity under a given premise doesn't constitute nor guarantee cogent reasoning. So? Science pretty much have stated that its primary assumption is Methodoloigical Naturalism. It works, it has continued to work and it is useful. Do you have any other method that works and produce any useful results at all?

The only crowd I'm part of is the anti-pop-goes-the weasel abiogenesis theory crowd. Please expand on this version of non-scientific abiogenesis.

Who believes in it? Who is wasting money on this? The only version of abiogenesis that fits this definition is when "god" popped humans into existance from mud.

LarianLeQuella

2nd March 2009, 03:51 PM

It means exactly what it says in plain English.

Ah, so you mean the moon IS made of wenslydale then! :p

JoeTheJuggler

2nd March 2009, 03:54 PM

True. But the galaxies aren't. The distance between them is increasing by the second.
Yes. But isn't your claim that we are/may be unique in the galaxy? If so, expansion is irrelevant.

Physicist/author Paul Davies said as much when he stated: Seti is not a complete waste of money, but the odds of finding another civilization are million to one. Or words to that effect.
OK.

But do you accept that there may be hundreds or thousands of ET intelligent civilizations in our galaxy?

ETA: I think you meant one to a million, no? Or that the odds against finding another civilization are a million to one.

At any rate, when you say that, I wonder what the ratio 1: 1 million corresponds to. 1 in a million years? One in a million stars we look at?

That's why I say this business of saying ET intelligence is "rare" is a relative term. There are slim odds to winning a lottery--it's very nearly zero. But if you buy a billion tickets (or ten billion or 100 billion), you're nearly certain (if not absolutely certain) to win.

amb

3rd March 2009, 03:26 AM

This is only occurring between our galaxy and galaxies that are not bound together by gravity(ie, galaxies that are very far away), in fact the Milky Way will collide and merge with the Andromeda Galaxy in a few Billion years.

Of course you are right. Clusters of galaxies are held together by gravity and possibly by dark matter.

amb

3rd March 2009, 03:47 AM

Yes. But isn't your claim that we are/may be unique in the galaxy? If so, expansion is irrelevant.

OK.

But do you accept that there may be hundreds or thousands of ET intelligent civilizations in our galaxy?

ETA: I think you meant one to a million, no? Or that the odds against finding another civilization are a million to one.

At any rate, when you say that, I wonder what the ratio 1: 1 million corresponds to. 1 in a million years? One in a million stars we look at?

That's why I say this business of saying ET intelligence is "rare" is a relative term. There are slim odds to winning a lottery--it's very nearly zero. But if you buy a billion tickets (or ten billion or 100 billion), you're nearly certain (if not absolutely certain) to win.

You may well be right. There may be a billion lifeforms elsewhere in the galaxy. In fact I would be surprised if there weren't. [ I'm thinking very primitive lifeforms ]
But looking at the path it took here on Earth, intelligence is not a given. If it is, does that mean the universe is bound to produce intelligence if the right conditions arise on other Earthlike planets, or even non-Earth like planets?
In that theory, I sense design. The cosmos was created with mankind in mind in other words. In a multiverse situation it's no problem, out of possibly trillions of baby universes, one is bound to produce intelligent life. But if this is all there is and intelligence is widespread, how did it come about?
There have been billions of lifeforms right here on Earth, only one has developed enough to even ponder these questions. [ that sounds familiar]

Radrook

3rd March 2009, 09:04 AM

Ah, so you mean the moon IS made of wenslydale then! :p

No. It means that the moon is made of the living mush that happily and magically pops in the never-never land of certain minds whenever they see a little bit of water.

JoeTheJuggler

3rd March 2009, 09:13 AM

You may well be right. There may be a billion lifeforms elsewhere in the galaxy. In fact I would be surprised if there weren't. [ I'm thinking very primitive lifeforms ]
But you reject the idea that there could be hundreds or even thousands of intelligent civilizations in the galaxy?

See that's why you're saying that your claim is only that we "may be" unique in the galaxy is not legit. If it was, you should also agree that there "may be" hundreds or thousands of intelligent civilizations in the galaxy. If you can't say that, then you are arguing that you somehow know intelligence isn't possible.

But looking at the path it took here on Earth, intelligence is not a given.
I never said it was a given. My position is that we don't know.

If it is, does that mean the universe is bound to produce intelligence if the right conditions arise on other Earthlike planets, or even non-Earth like planets?
In that theory, I sense design. The cosmos was created with mankind in mind in other words. In a multiverse situation it's no problem, out of possibly trillions of baby universes, one is bound to produce intelligent life.

So you're a Creationist? That's why you think we are unique?

But if this is all there is and intelligence is widespread, how did it come about?
Intelligence exists as a continuum in many animals on Earth. It "came about" the way any trait comes about--through evolution and natural selection.

There have been billions of lifeforms right here on Earth, only one has developed enough to even ponder these questions. [ that sounds familiar]
(Even if that's true--though I don't know how you can know that other animals haven't been able to ponder the question, "how did it all come about?"--especially other hominid species.) So?

You could also select the tallest animal ever to have lived and claim that only one animal has developed that much height. Would you claim that whatever that height is can't be achieved elsewhere in the galaxy?

In fact, you could do the same with almost any trait. Only one species is the fastest flyer. Does that mean organisms can't evolve elsewhere that fly faster?

I think the problem with your approach to intelligence is that you see it as an all or nothing thing. As I said, it exists as a continuum. (Especially if you consider extinct lines of hominids too!)

There are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy. There is nothing unique about the location or composition of our solar system. What we've learned so far about extrasolar planets, is that they're abundant. (With the imminent launch of the Kepler mission, NASA should have more info about smaller, Earth-sized planets before too long.)

Unless you think humans are the result of special attention (or intention or intervention) of a supernatural being, there's no reason that the sort of things that happened on Earth can't happen elsewhere. There has not been more time here than elsewhere; the laws of physics and chemistry function the same here as elsewhere.

LarianLeQuella

3rd March 2009, 12:17 PM

There have been billions of lifeforms right here on Earth, only one has developed enough to even ponder these questions.

Says who? Only ONE? ;)

LarianLeQuella

3rd March 2009, 12:21 PM

No. It means that the moon is made of the living mush that happily and magically pops in the never-never land of certain minds whenever they see a little bit of water.

Ah, but totaly out of thin air or a pile of dirt actually makes much more sense? :rolleyes:

And while water is an excelent indicator for what we know, I keep having to reming people in the end we really only have ONE datapoint at this time. Our knowledge is severely limited at this time. We keep using our one datapoint though as if it's the only type of datapoint, and that's not right. It may be a very probable datapoint given what we know of chemistry, but there are more things in the universe than are dreamed of in your philosophy (to butcher the bard).

And you seem to like using dismissive language just because we don't actually know exactly what transpired. Just because we don't have the answers is no reason not to try to understand the question better.

amb

4th March 2009, 02:41 AM

In the beginning, about four billion years ago, the air is unfit to breathe. The young earth is without life. The sun beats down; storms lash the coasts; volcanoes pour hissing lava into the ocean’s waters. These natural jolts fuse simple molecules into more complex ones. Amino acids are formed, then interact with each other, and primitive protein is fashioned, perhaps as a worm-like molecule. Somehow the right molecules get together and the first living cell appears. This first living cell is the great ancestor of all plants and animals on earth, including man. From this first cell, all other forms of life evolved. This tiny first living cell is the father of us all!

How did man come from this first cell? (Remember, there are more cells in the human body than there are people in the world.) Here's the story: As time went on, this first cell developed into amoeba-like organisms and other primitive creatures that could survive in the ocean. After millions of years, these creatures evolved into fish. Some of these fish developed lungs so that they could survive outside of the water. Gradually they began to make their way onto land as the first amphibians. These amphibians then evolved into reptiles and the earth soon became populated with great dinosaurs. Some of these reptiles started to develop legs that could move around better, and these creatures became what we today would call mammals. Other reptiles developed wings and flew away to become birds.

Where did man come from? One of these early mammals was known as a tree shrew. He was not much larger than a squirrel and in many ways looked like a squirrel. This creature lived in trees and gradually evolved into primitive monkeys and other apelike creatures. From these apelike creatures there evolved two major groups: 1) the great apes that we can see in zoos today, such as the gorilla, orangutan, gibbon and chimpanzee; 2) a creature who came down from the trees and who started walking upright (all monkeys and apes walk on all fours). He is now known as MAN!

Our father (that first living cell) would have been very proud of us if he could have seen how far we have come these past millions of years!

This information was taken from two sources: 1) "The Awesome Worlds Within a Cell," National Geographic, September, 1976, pp. 392-393; 2) Evolution, by Ruth Moore published by TIME Incorporated (TIME-LIFE series), 1964, pp.109-116

amb

4th March 2009, 02:47 AM

Fermi paradox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about Enrico Fermi's observation regarding extraterrestrial life. For the music album, see Fermi Paradox (album). For Fermi's estimation methods, see Fermi problem.

A graphical representation of the Arecibo message - Humanity's first attempt to use radio waves to actively communicate its existence to alien civilizationsThe Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

The extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common.[1] In an informal discussion in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi questioned why, if a multitude of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy, evidence such as spacecraft or probes are not seen. A more detailed examination of the implications of the topic began with a paper by Michael H. Hart in 1975, and it is sometimes referred to as the Fermi-Hart paradox.[2] Another closely related question is the Great Silence[3]—even if travel is hard, if life is common, why don't we detect their radio transmissions?

There have been attempts to resolve the Fermi Paradox by locating evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations, along with proposals that such life could exist without human knowledge. Counterarguments suggest that intelligent extraterrestrial life does not exist or occurs so rarely that humans will never make contact with it.

Starting with Hart, a great deal of effort has gone into developing scientific theories about, and possible models of, extraterrestrial life, and the Fermi paradox has become a theoretical reference point in much of this work. The problem has spawned numerous scholarly works addressing it directly, while various questions that relate to it have been addressed in fields as diverse as astronomy, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The emerging field of astrobiology has brought an interdisciplinary approach to the Fermi paradox and the question of extraterrestrial life

amb

4th March 2009, 02:51 AM

The first aspect of the paradox, "the argument by scale", is a function of the raw numbers involved: there are an estimated 250 billion (2.5 x 1011) stars in the Milky Way and 70 sextillion (7 x 1022) in the visible universe.[4] Even if intelligent life occurs on only a minuscule percentage of planets around these stars, there should still be a great number of civilizations extant in the Milky Way galaxy alone. This argument also assumes the mediocrity principle, which states that Earth is not special, but merely a typical planet, subject to the same laws, effects, and likely outcomes as any other world. Some estimates using the Drake equation support this argument, although the assumptions behind those calculations have themselves been challenged.

The second cornerstone of the Fermi paradox is a rejoinder to the argument by scale: given intelligent life's ability to overcome scarcity, and its tendency to colonize new habitats, it seems likely that any advanced civilization would seek out new resources and colonize first their own star system, and then the surrounding star systems. As there is no conclusive or certifiable evidence on Earth or elsewhere in the known universe of other intelligent life after 13.7 billion years of the universe's history, it may be assumed that intelligent life is rare or that our assumptions about the general behavior of intelligent species are flawed.

The Fermi paradox can be asked in two ways. The first is, "Why are no aliens or their artifacts physically here?" If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy.[5] This is a relatively small amount of time on a geological scale, let alone a cosmological one. Since there are many stars older than the sun, or since intelligent life might have evolved earlier elsewhere, the question then becomes why the galaxy has not been colonized already. Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to all alien civilizations, large scale exploration of the galaxy is still possible; the means of exploration and theoretical probes involved are discussed extensively below. However, no signs of either colonization or exploration have been generally acknowledged.

The argument above may not hold for the universe as a whole, since travel times may well explain the lack of physical presence on Earth of alien inhabitants of far away galaxies. However, the question then becomes "Why do we see no signs of intelligent life?" as a sufficiently advanced civilization[6] could potentially be seen over a significant fraction of the size of the observable universe[7] Even if such civilizations are rare, the scale argument indicates they should exist somewhere and some point during the history of the universe, and since they could be detected from far away over a considerable period of time, many more potential sites for their origin are within our view. However, no incontrovertible signs of such civilizations have been detected.

It is currently unclear which version of the paradox is stronger.

Still from Wikepedia

JoeTheJuggler

4th March 2009, 08:53 AM

How did man come from this first cell?
Evolution by natural selection.

JoeTheJuggler

4th March 2009, 09:02 AM

The Fermi paradox can be asked in two ways. The first is, "Why are no aliens or their artifacts physically here?" If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy.

You should put text in quote tags when you're quoting from another source. I have a tough time telling what words are yours and what words from your sources.

At any rate, this still depends on technology that is beyond what we have. So there could be intelligent civilizations equal to ours and we would not be able to detect them.

I've also answered the Fermi Paradox in several other ways already. I'll recap at least some of my points that you've never rebutted:

1) Could be that the technology is not possible.
2) Could be that intelligent civilizations don't last long enough to reach that tech level even if it's possible.
3) Even if it's possible and if civilizations last long enough, it might be economically unfeasible to do so (or such civilizations might lack the motive to send out these self-replicating probes for a number of other reasons: i) fear of hostile civilizations being able to track back to the maker, ii)fear of the self-replicating probes becoming dangerous, iii)the idea simply never occurred to anyone else, or iii)alien motivations we humans couldn't begin to understand.)
4) Even if the tech is possible, the civilizations last long enough, and they have the motivation and resources to send out such probes, it's still a great big galaxy with things spread out in space and time: we could have missed a probe that passed through our solar system a mere 1 million years ago.
5) It could be that the galaxy is teeming with intelligent civilizations just as advanced as us--and we've never sent out self-replicating probes. Or maybe one of them has just done so within the last 50, 100 or 1000 years, and they haven't had time to reach us yet.