It's being called agnostic.
It's being called agnostic.
Considering how vast the galaxy is, let alone the universe, and how long everything has been around, I think it's a stretch to say it is unlikely there are other planets out there with intelligent life, or at least there were/will be at some point in time. If we evolved to be as we are, what is to prevent other beings from doing the same? We've already proven it's possible, and if it can happen once, it can happen again.
While there is a vast quantity of planets in the Milky Way galaxy and they vary wildly in terms of mass, distance from the habitable zone of their star(s), etc., there are many of those planets that have a high probability of being earth-like*, as shown by the Kepler Project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)
http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/papers/
*This does not imply exactly like Earth. Earth-like objects are defined explicitly as planets that meets some specific criteria, particularly with regards to mass and distance from its star. At this time, the composition of these objects is unknown.
Goldilocks zone!... We're gonna have to wait for the James Webb Space Telescope guys.
Well the god of the bible certainly isn't worthy of worship, and he would have a lot of questions to answer about his conduct over the past 13 billion years. Though if he was the god he says he is, he'd already know all the questions in our heads.
If the number of gods you believe in is greater than zero then you are a theist. Anything less and you are an atheist, whether you want to label yourself that or not.
No it's not, (a)gnosticism is not about beliefs, it's about whether we can know something. You can be an agnostic atheist.
Atheism being a religion is like saying not wearing clothes is wearing clothes. Or the old and great quote "if atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby". Atheism means just one thing. Not having a religion. Period. For religious people this seems to be impossible concept to understand. For them everyone has to have a religion. Not having one is something they do not even understand as a concept so they deny it.
As for creationism. It is just the same old book written by humans thousands of years ago who did not understand anything what they saw on the ground, on the sky or in the water. But they wanted an explanation. So they invented lots of explanations in the form of stories. They gathered lots of old ideas and mixed them with new ideas. All of those ideas were invented by man using their imagination because that is all they had. They lived in era where average lifespan was just fraction of what it is now, a lot of children died at child birth or at young age to diseases no one had any idea what was causing them. Then they look at sky and they see the stars, the moon, the sun. They feel the wind and the rain, the cold an warmth of the air. But they did not understand it. Where did all this come from? Because the only tool to explain it was imagination that is what they used.
The mayans had a different kind of idea that the christians had. Christians used a lot of old stories others had used before them. Even in the finnish folklore Kalevala there is one version of this creation. We know these are all stories that are not true. But if you teach a child from early age that kalevala is true then he will believe it. But it is still nothing more than an imaginery story. Calling it creationism doesn't suddenly make it any less imaginery.
A lot of this has to do with human psychology and how it works. Humans want explanation even when there is not one. Human mind is great at justifying its own assumptions and ignoring stuff that contradicts our assumptions. Ufos and aliens are a great example. All the blurry pics of seagulls and lens artefacts and reflections show nothing. But that is why so many people believe in ufos. There has to be an explanation for those blurry things!? No.
When you have a blurry pic of something you need to remember that one of the conclusions is not "aliens or not aliens" but that you can not tell anything from the picture because it shows nothing. It is just a blurry pic. But that is not a good explanation for our brains and it may even contradict our beliefs so we ignore it. Explanation that there is no explanation is not satisfying. Any explanation is better than none.
So some people then ignore the facts and believes they know but can't prove it. For them it becomes a question of proving a negative, proving the non-existence. "Prove that aliens don't exist and I admit I'm wrong". It is russell's teapot.
As for creationism. It is just the same old book written by humans thousands of years ago who did not understand anything what they saw on the ground, on the sky or in the water. But they wanted an explanation. So they invented lots of explanations in the form of stories. They gathered lots of old ideas and mixed them with new ideas. All of those ideas were invented by man using their imagination because that is all they had. They lived in era where average lifespan was just fraction of what it is now, a lot of children died at child birth or at young age to diseases no one had any idea what was causing them. Then they look at sky and they see the stars, the moon, the sun. They feel the wind and the rain, the cold an warmth of the air. But they did not understand it. Where did all this come from? Because the only tool to explain it was imagination that is what they used.
The mayans had a different kind of idea that the christians had. Christians used a lot of old stories others had used before them. Even in the finnish folklore Kalevala there is one version of this creation. We know these are all stories that are not true. But if you teach a child from early age that kalevala is true then he will believe it. But it is still nothing more than an imaginery story. Calling it creationism doesn't suddenly make it any less imaginery.
A lot of this has to do with human psychology and how it works. Humans want explanation even when there is not one. Human mind is great at justifying its own assumptions and ignoring stuff that contradicts our assumptions. Ufos and aliens are a great example. All the blurry pics of seagulls and lens artefacts and reflections show nothing. But that is why so many people believe in ufos. There has to be an explanation for those blurry things!? No.
When you have a blurry pic of something you need to remember that one of the conclusions is not "aliens or not aliens" but that you can not tell anything from the picture because it shows nothing. It is just a blurry pic. But that is not a good explanation for our brains and it may even contradict our beliefs so we ignore it. Explanation that there is no explanation is not satisfying. Any explanation is better than none.
So some people then ignore the facts and believes they know but can't prove it. For them it becomes a question of proving a negative, proving the non-existence. "Prove that aliens don't exist and I admit I'm wrong". It is russell's teapot.
How many times on this planet has some catastrophic event wiped out everything? Well almost everything. LOL by the grace of God our organics was built up to withstand that and somehow able to keep going. Come to think of it, it's a minor miracle that it hasn't happened again. And even if there was enough organic material to condition a planet for earth like or other life development, there's no guarantee that that life isn't or heading to or hit an evolutionary dead end. There's just so much more to take in consideration besides a having friendly atmosphere.
LOL you know that on the Planet Quarg, people are probably having this very same discussion.
Know anything about horse racing?
There's a bet you can make. I think it's called a superexacta I'm not sure. I only bet place and show and quinellas. Anyways, the bet consists of you not just picking the winners in every race but the positions of all the horses in all the races. at the track on that day. The odds of winning are phenomenal. Now make that bet at say 10 or 12 race tracks. The odds of hitting every single one is about the same as what it took to get from simple amino acids with proteins to simpletons with protractors. But again, I'm not adamant that there isn't intelligent life out there as if it happened once, it can happen twice. Just the odds doesn't look like a bet I'd make.
And yet life continues, including intelligent life both before and after such events.
Who is to say life on Earth is not? Who is to say we are not?
Do you have a source for the particular odds of life forming?
(Forbin)
DELETED
by Forbin
if you repeat a random experiment countably infinite times every possible outcome of it will happen countably infinite times
Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.
damnit got my infinities mixed up
Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.
damnit got my infinities mixed up
wat.
You think my statement erroneous? Pre-historic animals (e.g. dinosaurs) were intelligent. Dolphins are intelligent. Ergo, intelligent beings existed both before and after mass extinction events.
You mean there was some sort of intelligent life on Earth before the Asteroid hit in Arizona?
[/QUOTE]Who is to say life on Earth is not? Who is to say we are not?[/QUOTE]
Actually I believe that there is a dead end to evolutionary development- of sorts. But even if there is or isn't, we made it to sentience.
LOL there's all sorts of sci-fi that has a superior life form developing from humanity and the humans go out and kill it.
[/QUOTE]Do you have a source for the particular odds of life forming?[/QUOTE]
Really? Does there ALWAYS have to be a chart or a wiki or whatever with you?
Yeah I have a source. My own brain cells.
Here let's start with something simple.
Sexual reproduction and the chance of mutations based on reproduction performed in almost identical settings. What is the odds of that? There's probably something on wikipedia you can surf to find that out. We've all seen the poster with the bees or the flies in school.
Now we don't care about a plain ol plain ol mutation. Nope we need a dominating mutation. One that dominates the gene pool but where at the very least, the mutation doesn't interfere with development of the mutated specimen. What are the odds there? No. I don't have a clue. Where getting into numerical territory I can't count to
Now forget so so mutations. we're really wanting an freaking X-man. In other words a step up on evolutionary development. The odds?
Now with divergent evolution theory, we know that it's not just ONE specimen reproducing. LOL There's all sorts of reproducing going on, but it still had to get a start and that was a big reach in itself - right?
Now with all that, factor in competition from other organisms (think lions and tigers as well as flu virus), natural disasters, "man made" disasters, hell even an alien space invasion from another planet that did manage to make it.
Do that and the thought of a planet with intelligent life is at best a rarity if at all. Something along the lines of correctly betting on the positions of all the horses in all the races at twelve horse tracks on the same day.
Do you really need some sort of "source" to reach that deduction?
Sure If it happened once with us, it can happen again. I just don't think it should be taken for granted that there is automatically "little green men" running around on some other planet
Sorry, I can't do this quote thing for Sh!t
That Nascar Bike....I don't like where the rider sits.
Nice articles.
Re: probability of life.
The main assumption of people who tend to think the formation of life is improbable is that it is based on probability. It is not. Given the presence of not uncommon conditions, life is a certainty. It's a physical process, not some dice roll (on a macro scale. Obviously some probability creeps in on the mutagenic scale due to quantum mechanics).
Speaking of uncommon conditions, I recently read a very interesting, very short paper about the occurrence of a universal goldilocks zone with relation to water temperature and the conditions for carbon based life. The idea goes that about 10-17 million years after the collapse of the universal plasma, the mean spatial temperature would have been about 300k, which would have meant a universal goldilocks zone. Every planet, even rogue planets, excepting those already too close to young stars, would have been in more or less prime position to harbor life. It is not much of a stretch at all at that point to consider panspermeation being a relatively common occurrence, with the residents of the involved chunks finding a planet either already in or about to transition to a goldilocks zone. It's also very likely that these rogue planets harbored life well beyond the point when the mean temperature dropped to an uninhabitable degree due to tectonic, heat vent, and other life supporting planetary activity.
The main assumption of people who tend to think the formation of life is improbable is that it is based on probability. It is not. Given the presence of not uncommon conditions, life is a certainty. It's a physical process, not some dice roll (on a macro scale. Obviously some probability creeps in on the mutagenic scale due to quantum mechanics).
Speaking of uncommon conditions, I recently read a very interesting, very short paper about the occurrence of a universal goldilocks zone with relation to water temperature and the conditions for carbon based life. The idea goes that about 10-17 million years after the collapse of the universal plasma, the mean spatial temperature would have been about 300k, which would have meant a universal goldilocks zone. Every planet, even rogue planets, excepting those already too close to young stars, would have been in more or less prime position to harbor life. It is not much of a stretch at all at that point to consider panspermeation being a relatively common occurrence, with the residents of the involved chunks finding a planet either already in or about to transition to a goldilocks zone. It's also very likely that these rogue planets harbored life well beyond the point when the mean temperature dropped to an uninhabitable degree due to tectonic, heat vent, and other life supporting planetary activity.
Mmm, that is a very interesting topic, do you have a link to the paper perhaps?
As I was reading the "Rare Earth" article I remembered about a paper wrote by Adrian Kent named "Too Damn Quiet?"... I recommend you all to read it.
Also, God's Debris.
I tried to find it earlier. Wasn't using the right keywords:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0613v2.pdf
Slightly lighter version:
http://www.space.com/24496-uni ... abitability-big-bang.html
Firstly the Big Bang theory is wrong. There is not enough lithium in the universe. There is insufficient dark matter so make up the missing matter, so that theory is likely wrong too.
Secondly science cannot answer the big questions, it relies on an impartial observer. We already know that the observer is part of the question.
Thus, to answer the big questions all we have is theology.
This is damaging to the world, theology is a force for evil in our world. But we need it because many people require answers to something that cannot be answered and they believe that knowing AN answer - even a scientifically disproven one like the Christian faith is better than not knowing an answer.
There is no rational thought process which can lead to belief in proven falsehood. Therefor faith is scientific evidence of stupidity, and I treat it as such.
Secondly science cannot answer the big questions, it relies on an impartial observer. We already know that the observer is part of the question.
Thus, to answer the big questions all we have is theology.
This is damaging to the world, theology is a force for evil in our world. But we need it because many people require answers to something that cannot be answered and they believe that knowing AN answer - even a scientifically disproven one like the Christian faith is better than not knowing an answer.
There is no rational thought process which can lead to belief in proven falsehood. Therefor faith is scientific evidence of stupidity, and I treat it as such.
The total quantity across all lithium isotopes is correct. What was in question was the apparent imbalance between lithium-6 and -7. Older analysis showed that ancient stars had lithium-6 content, when they should not, and subsequently not enough lithium-7. The newest results from the Keck doesn't show any lithium-6 and proper levels of lithium-7.
http://www.popsci.com/science/ ... nsistency-big-bang-theory
http://www.aanda.org/articles/ ... a12221-09/aa12221-09.html
Or, a simpler answer is that we live in a virtual reality, it is all an illusion.
This, on one level explains many inconsistencies in our view of reality.
It does however, open up a much bigger question.
As an example, a table, on our level is solid, it appears to have form and structure, and be physically present.
Yet, on the atomic level, it is simply electrons, by far the greater part of an atom is nothing. So, do we think space is solid, or vast areas of nothing, with occasional stars and planets.
So, if space resembles atoms, why do we believe objects have physical form ?
Well, it's convenient, given the limited resources we have for perceiving what we choose to call reality. But, our eyes only perceive a limited range of the light spectrum, and that limited view is then filtered by our brains ability to understand what it sees.
How do you perceive space travel, computers, digital watches ? And how would these things be perceived by a human 1000 years in the past ?
Which of these perceptions is 'reality' ?
They both are to each viewer as reality is different for all of us.
So what is real ?
FYI, it is fine accepting that it is a fun illusion and going with the flow. Also, Karma is a good points system to keep you levelling up to clock the game.
This, on one level explains many inconsistencies in our view of reality.
It does however, open up a much bigger question.
As an example, a table, on our level is solid, it appears to have form and structure, and be physically present.
Yet, on the atomic level, it is simply electrons, by far the greater part of an atom is nothing. So, do we think space is solid, or vast areas of nothing, with occasional stars and planets.
So, if space resembles atoms, why do we believe objects have physical form ?
Well, it's convenient, given the limited resources we have for perceiving what we choose to call reality. But, our eyes only perceive a limited range of the light spectrum, and that limited view is then filtered by our brains ability to understand what it sees.
How do you perceive space travel, computers, digital watches ? And how would these things be perceived by a human 1000 years in the past ?
Which of these perceptions is 'reality' ?
They both are to each viewer as reality is different for all of us.
So what is real ?
FYI, it is fine accepting that it is a fun illusion and going with the flow. Also, Karma is a good points system to keep you levelling up to clock the game.
I don't believe in Karma.
Hey that's great! Uh... the discussion was INTELLIGENT life, The "odds" of successive mutations occurring on a planet making it far enough along that they wind up with a species have a sense of self, make fire and kill others for fun. That's where things get tricky.
I'm no scientist, but I do gamble. Yeah, evolution is a crap shoot. Ever shoot dice? It's real easy to use a crap game as a vehicle to base evolutionary development with. It's not totally accurate as we're playing with random variables, but it's close enough. LOL a starter set for Darwinism.
I read a little about Goldilocks zones too. It has valid points, but still doesn't automatically guarantee survival of life or the advancement of life. It just proposes the possibility of life.
Maybe this is the wrong example, but here goes.
Say you have a nice aquarium you've set up, it's perfect to support a multitude of fishes. Are those fish going to magically develop just cause there's a nice place for them? Of course not. Now let's say you did all that and left the tank alone... for a few million years. Does that mean the microbes in the cycled tank will automatically develop into something else? No. It just means that the possibility for them to develop is there. Does that make sense?
Man this is a great thread! Thanks for starting it Racer X 
AKA "Agree with my opinion or you are stupid" thread
edit: and the best of examples cherry-picking
edit: and the best of examples cherry-picking
What are you going on about? The Big Bang Theory is one of my favorite shows! I wouldn't think a show about nerds would be so good, but it is!
Sure there is. The power of suggestion capitalizes on rational thought process.
Why do think there are so many socialists and conservatives running around
when such a large number of normal folks realize the left and right wings are nothing more than moronic political scumbags?
Yep they got the same kinda hook as what a preacher throws out for his flock. All that egalitarian bullshit from some over educated, mentally challenged left winger is every bit the same stupid garbage as the unicorns and rainbows some slope headed pastors promise to their flocks on the right wing of things. Yet people, gullible herd animals as what they are, just eat it up.
And just how do you disprove Christian Faith? I see Faithful Christians all over the damned place. Them morons bang on my door at early thirty wanting to know if I want a copy of the Watch Tower or in my case, wanting to know if I know if my neighbors are Spanish speaking Protestants. Yeah I'm pretty sure it's there.
Bill Nye & Ken Ham's debate @ the Creation Museum
(193 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG