# Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet



## ScienceRocks (Jul 22, 2017)

Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?


----------



## miketx (Jul 22, 2017)

Trump is building wall around the heliosphere so no way.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 22, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?



Did the American Indians develop trans-Atlantic vessels after these guys showed up?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 22, 2017)

fncceo said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?
> ...



They never had the chance. Let us hope it is different in our case.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 22, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > ScienceRocks said:
> ...



What would be the benefit of space travel?  There are very few 4-star hotels in space.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 22, 2017)

fncceo said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...




Resources
Wealth-One asteroid cost at least ten trillion dollars that were discovered only a few years ago.
The ability to defend our planet from asteroids
Spreading our basket around instead of one place

Maybe even one day another planet like earth.

Many reasons.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 22, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > ScienceRocks said:
> ...



Mining of asteroids isn't' commercially viable using our present rocket technology and lifting costs of $2200 per KG.  If trillions of dollars of resources were to enter the markets the prices of those resources would plummet. This has happened before, when Spain began to bring back gold and silver from the New World. The subsequent crash in gold and silver prices created an inflationary spiral that crashed the economies of Europe for a century.

Catastrophic asteroid hits are millions of years apart.

An orbital or planet based colony would be more susceptible of catastrophe and at greater risk of extinction than the human population on Earth.

No earth-like exoplanets have yet to be discovered and were one discovered we don't have the technology to reach them without centuries long trips.

There is no pressing reason to develop space travel at this point in human development.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 22, 2017)

They already came here.  They talked to the OP and realized there is no intelligent life here.  So they left.

Great going spanky.


----------



## DarkFury (Jul 22, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > ScienceRocks said:
> ...


*How about we work on the countries ability to defend against assholes first?*


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jul 22, 2017)

Long distance space travel is no viable currently. We can probably make a manned trip to Mars but that is about it. Technology has a long way to go to get even close to being able to travel near the speed of light which is what would be required before thinking of interstellar travel. The closest star is 4 light years away. Even at the speed of light it would take a ship 4 years to get there. Oxygen, water, waste recycle/disposal, life support, for 4 years for a flight that is likely to not find another habitable planet. Even if they arrived and did find a livable planet it would take the message four years to get back here and at minimum another 4 years for another ship to travel there. 12 years. 

There is likely a way to travel through space at faster than light speed, but until it is found, if ever, we're stuck here. Unmanned spacecraft will have to lead the way.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 22, 2017)

We need to destroy Islam and Marxism before we spread humanity around the galaxy.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Jul 22, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?



Yes!


----------



## baileyn45 (Jul 22, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?


They already have. No really, I heard it on youtube.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 22, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?


7 billion years ago any intelligent life had it easier than we do now. The universe after the big bang expanded and from what we know it's still expanding and picking up speed. So the stars were all a lot closer 6 billion or 9 billion years ago. Imagine what the night sky looked like ten billion years ago. It must have been amazing.

Now imagine how far apart stars will be ten billion years from now. So when a future species on another planet evolves at that time they may look out and only see 9 faint lights. So far they can only guess what they are. They may truly think they are alone.

So chances are if aliens visited it was before humans even evolved. The aliens instead visited before dinosaurs even evolved. They saw millions of trilobites and tardigrades


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 22, 2017)

theHawk said:


> We need to destroy Islam and Marxism before we spread humanity around the galaxy.


If Christianity says we're alone we need to drop it too the minute we find other life.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2017)

fncceo said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Actually in order to have it we need to research it and develop it. There is every reason to develop it. The more we work on it the cheaper the cost to lift off and maintain a presence in space. Some one WILL mine those asteroid eventually.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > We need to destroy Islam and Marxism before we spread humanity around the galaxy.
> ...


Except it says no such thing. But thanks for being clueless.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 23, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?



At some point they have to come and take you home, don't they?


----------



## fncceo (Jul 23, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Some one WILL mine those asteroid eventually.



I have no doubt of that.  But, we won't be doing it with '60s rocket technology.  Humans have been wading around in low-earth orbit for nearly 50 years with nothing to show for it.  Technologies that could make exploitation of the solar system a profitable venture are still on the drawing boards.  Mass drivers, space elevator, orbital hoist, not one of these things is being explored in any meaningful way.

Until they are, any kind of development of the solar system is a fantasy.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Yes it does. Christianity is a spin-off of the old testament. We are alone they say.

Does Christianity say we are not alone?

I'm sure in that book of ramblings it says both if you look and twist hard enough


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Be specific and cite for us where it says that.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 23, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > We need to destroy Islam and Marxism before we spread humanity around the galaxy.
> ...



We are likely alone, there isn't so much as a microbe in the rest of the universe.  Unless of course scientists can prove life can spring out of an inorganic environment by natural means.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


There isn't? We know that? Show me a link that this has been proven.

If the old testament doesn't say we are alone why do ignorant Christians all think we are? It's always the nutters who believe it like retardedgysgt


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


And while I go do the research for you, I love it! Religion is so vague and rambly that you can probably find ten different quotes that suggest we are alone and some that imply maybe we aren't. Maybe? I guess that wasn't a question ignorant people 2000 years wondered.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Why did Vatican condemn gallilao? Today the Vatican believes there may be intelligent life but Jesus was a unique event. They have changed.

We are the evidence life can pop up in the universe. If it can happen here why not somewhere else?

Ok, I looked into it. Christianity has an easy explanation if or when we find aliens. So I wonder why so many of them still believe so strongly that we are special or unique. Just because we aren't advanced enough to have found other life doesn't mean there isn't any.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The bible does not say we are alone in fact it speaks of other books which can mean other groups of believers.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?


If we found life on Europa we would be the more advanced species. Would we obduct them and experiment on them? Would we keep an eye on them from afar? Would we interfer with them? What if they could develop nukes and fly into space? Would we want that? Or allow that?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


See how vague that is? Could mean anything. 

Interesting that Christianity fought the notion for so long and they had no other reason than they thought we were special.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 23, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Yes we do know that.  There hasn't been a shred of evidence of life outside our planet.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Until Columbus discovered America, they didn't know it existed.

You're conclusion is based on ignorance. Have you been inside Europa or to alpha centuri? Nope. You/we don't have a clue.

In fact your position is so ignorant you can't find anyone saying what you are saying on YouTube. Literally everyone believes we are not alone.

I couldn't even find one christian nut to make the argument that we are alone. Can you show me a link from anyone making your ignorant case?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


We didn't think anything lived on the ocean floor where photosynthesis can't reach but damn there are.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 23, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Can you show me a link proving we are not alone?

Can you provide one scientific theory for how life is created with the raw materials of the universe?


----------



## theHawk (Jul 23, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Did I ever claim that?  No.

Next red herring.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


The second one is easy. The elements for life are everywhere.

At least you admit you can't find anyone on the net who argues we are alone. That's because it's statistically impossible.

You want proof? Look at earth. When the conditions are right life appears.

Now, seeing as how there are more stars than grains of sand on the earth, let me know when you've looked at even one up close enough to know. 

You haven't looked at even one so what the fuck do you know?

And why do you think we are alone? Besides lack of enough information? Is it because you think you are special?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 23, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


All humans believed that. Turns out life can happen in places we didn't think could harbor life


----------



## SixFoot (Jul 23, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



It shouldn't matter to you what some obscure reference like, "why do Christians think [...]" even means. Open the Book and read it for yourself. If anything, the Old Testament outright says we are NOT alone in the book of Genesis:

"When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, *the sons of God* saw that *the daughters of humans* were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit will not remain in humans forever, for they are corrupt; *their days will be a hundred and twenty years. (*How did they know that in a time where people supposedly only lived 40 or so years?*)
*
The Nephilim were *on the earth* in those days—and *also afterward*—when *the sons of God* went to the daughters *of humans* and* had children* by them. They were the *heroes of old*, men of renown."

There's really nothing for followers of science and followers of Christ to argue over.... well, except for semantics it seems.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jul 24, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?


For someone who's handle declares science rocks you really don't seem to understand it much. I suggest Fermi's Paradox as a starting point and stop treating things like Star Trek as hard science.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


And those creatures will never do anything but eat and shit.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


We used to think that about dolphins and cuddlefish


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You keep side-stepping the issue.  This isn't about places that can "support life", I have no doubt there are plenty of worlds out there that can support life.

The creation of life, and a habitable zone that can support life are two entirely different topics.  Life does not spontaneously manifest itself just because there is a habitable environment.  Because of that fact, there is no grounds to believe life exists out on other planets simply because there is an environment that supports life.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Let me know when either of them uses fire.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Former Nasa astronaut says it is 'arrogant' to think we are alone in the universe | Daily Mail Online

Can you show me anyone that agrees with your position?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


Wow, you're so smart.  Actually, now that you say that I'm certain there is much more intelligent life out there than YOU.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


Would you have figured out how to make fire if someone else didn't teach you?  So maybe they are not as smart as Albert Einstein but smarter than you.  Somewhere in between.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



How do you think life manifests?  I say all the ingredients for life come from the inside of stars that died.  They blew up and blew chunks of all the ingredients for life into the universe and when those microbes get frozen out in space they stay dormant until they crash into a planet that can harbor life.  

Life is inside comets.  Plant that life seed on a planet and look at what happened on earth.  You get the diversity you see here.  We know how life gets started on other planets because of what happened here.  We don't have all the answers but we are pretty sure god didn't poof fully grown animals into existence.  

There are lots of scientific theories I'd go with before the religious story of creation.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Why are you so sure of this?  I'll bet you in 2 billion years they'll be praying to the worm jesus and we will be gone.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What ?


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Now imagine how far apart stars will be ten billion years from now. So when a future species on another planet evolves at that time they may look out and only see 9 faint lights. So far they can only guess what they are. They may truly think they are alone.



Actually, it is galaxies that are moving farther apart from each other, not stars.

Stars are locked into their own local gravity by the galaxy they belong to.  And their relative distance to each other is pretty constant (varying over millions of years by their individual rotations through their respective galaxy).

With the size and distance of galaxies, by the time they actually started to form (roughly 1 billion years after the Big Bang), they were already considerable distances from each other.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> If Christianity says we're alone we need to drop it too the minute we find other life.



Where exactly does it say that?  Would love to see a reference stating that this is the only planet He made, and humans are the only intelligent life form.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 24, 2017)

baileyn45 said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 24, 2017)

Cassini taking a picture of Saturns F ring, when suddenly, something in the ring decided it was time to get the fuck out of Dodge.


----------



## miketx (Jul 24, 2017)

fncceo said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Right now there is little benefit to manned space travel other than pure science and exploration, and all as the libstains will tell you, none of us R's have any idea what that means. I think that until a more "rapid transit system" of at least interplanetary travel is developed, it is way too risky to send people out into planetary space.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



LMAO.  Wow, microbes form in space after a super nova?   Gawd you're a retard.  The only thing that forms out of a super nova are heavier elements such as iron, as heavier elements can only be made my lesser elements combining at the atomic level during such an event.

"Life is inside comets"?  Comets are made up of frozen water and rock. There has never been any scientific discovery to show otherwise.

"We don't have all the answers".  Thanks Captain Obvious, you clearly don't have any answers.

Even the simplest life forms are very complex with so much DNA code our scientists today still can't decipher it all.  Show us how atoms and molecules would ever naturally form such complex and intelligent code fond in the simplest DNA.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?


Yes


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

baileyn45 said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?
> ...


Those are trump supporters


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 24, 2017)

miketx said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > ScienceRocks said:
> ...


Explain how we DEVELOP these interstellar drives if we do not actually explore space?


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The astronaut has simply bought into the propaganda NASA has been spewing for decades.

NASA has wasted billions of dollars on idiotic probes to search for life on moons, Mars, and space.  And of course they have come up with bupkis. 

Instead they should just accept the fact that the universe is lifeless and focus on finding resources we can exploit and use in order to build ships to travel to other solar systems, and to search for habitable planets for us to eventually colonize.

I think the only reason NASA keeps hyping up the "possibility of finding life" is in order to receive more public support and thus more funds.  There is no scientific reason to beleive anything out there has life.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Christianity sez God is an ET


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


The Universe is teeming with life.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


It did here. Science is the same everywhere. Every Earthlike planet will have life.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


We have not looked very hard. We haven't even collected soil samples from Mars yet for fossil microbes. 

Trust me, the Universe is BIG.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Then explain how life formed here by natural means.  You know, since it's so easy and happens everywhere.  Surely you can explain how the first simple bacteria formed with all its complex DNA.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?
> ...


His statement is actually very good.

He implies we need proof that our current physics is wrong. A UFO landing here would imply that warp or faster than light travel was possible. It would definitely spur space travel, in that case.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Probes did look at Martian rock.  They had drilling tools to look.  What did they find: bupkis.


----------



## 007 (Jul 24, 2017)

fncceo said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


Gotta start somewhere.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


And reproduce

As will most life we find on other planets


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 24, 2017)

Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.

The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion      |     Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> > ScienceRocks said:
> ...



You liberals claim you're all about science, but all you got are sci-fi fantasies.  

Not one of you has a coherent scientific arguement for the creation of life.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

Notice I posted Abiogenesis. The origin of life is NOT Evolution. Evolution occurs AFTER Creation.

Carbon and water are magic. It is like they were designed to create life.


----------



## miketx (Jul 24, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


One is not Dependant on the other. We already have a lot of experience "exploring space", and I did not mention the word "interstellar".


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


By the way, the first life on Earth was not DNA. It was single stranded RNA. Made LOTS of mutations LOL


----------



## miketx (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


You must be old!


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


No they didn't. We know that Mars had no ADVANCED life.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

Mushroom said:


> Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.
> 
> The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion      |     Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine


All earthlike planets in the goldilocks zone with Sun like G2 stars in the arms of spiral galaxies and have iron cores with magnetic fields will create life.

The real question is how far outside this earth-like that life can go.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

Mushroom said:


> Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.
> 
> The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion      |     Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine


The evidence is not good.

Intelligence might be very rare.

Physics limits keep intelligence local

Intelligence destroys itself quickly


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



"Abiogenesis" the word every dumb liberal runs to when they can't show or explain how life was created.

The link you provided lists several theories that never panned out what is the stunning conclusion according to your own link:

_"*There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life*. Scientists have proposed several plausible theories, which share some common elements."_

Yup, that's the best they got folks. There is not one generally accepted model for the origin of life because all the models are complete hokum.

Never once has spontaneous creation been replicated in a lab, and scientists don't even have a theory on how to even attempt it.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


What is your hypothesis?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?


Why would aliens come to our little backwater?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


We evolutionary biologists are waay too lazy to stare at a test tube or petri dish for a billion years


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



So far the best scientific explanation for life by liberals is..."carbon and water are magic".   So I guess magic is science now?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Vague yes, but let's not forget it's been edited extensively by the PTB to promote a specific message.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Answer the question. What is your hypothesis?


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



So it takes a billion years for a bunch of inorganic molecules to suddenly form complex DNA strands.  Great cop out, I'll give you that.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


In a way yes. It appears biochemistry is a natural result of the periodic table.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Are you saying God couldn't put life on other planets?


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



My hypothesis is life cannot form naturally in an inorganic universe.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



God could, yes.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Therefore your answer should have been "I don't know". 

While life is obviously rare, at least in our neck of the galaxy, that doesn't mean it's rare everywhere.  It's also possible that God might only put life on one planet in each galaxy.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Not exactly. It takes that long for simple organics to accumulate in order to come in contact and interact.

The first life was very simple. Complex DNA & multicellular life came much much later.

EDIT: You appear to have a misunderstanding of "organics" &"inorganics". An organic molecule contains carbon. CO2 is organic. Inorganic does not "become" organic.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


An interesting, but unproved, theory. 

Atheists loved the Oscillating Universe theory, but now that all the evidence points to a One-Shot Universe ending in "The Big Chill", it begs the question "How and Why did it all begin?"


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


He hasn't admitted to God as his hypothesis yet, cuz I will rip him a new asshole


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


The universe is not inorganic. 

Our sun is creating tons of carbon in its core as we post.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Ah, so we are finally making progress. You are an Intelligent Designer then. I will not call you a creationist, cuz those people are crazy. Even IDers admit that. 

True?


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> All earthlike planets in the goldilocks zone with Sun like G2 stars in the arms of spiral galaxies and have iron cores with magnetic fields will create life.
> 
> The real question is how far outside this earth-like that life can go.



I would not say will, but can.

You still need other things to create other than minimal levels of life.  Water or a liquid to operate as water for a start.

Intelligent life is yet another thing.  Most believe that without a significant moon collisions will tend to wipe out the planet to often to evolve much between the constant extinction level events.

And to ever become space faring, other requirements would have to be met.  First a clear atmosphere, so that space outside of the planetary atmosphere can be seen and wondered about.  And once again a close body like a moon to have an initial destination to reach prior to going out farther.

As far as "alien life", I do not think we will ever meet any beyond the level of say the chimp or dog.  Physics limits us to exploring a very small part of our galaxy.  And it also degrades any signals to the point that we will never detect them.

Nu Phoenicis is a possible contender, being slightly larger than the Sun, and having an accretion disk and possible planets.  But it is just under 50 light years away.

Even if intelligent beings who possess the capability to detect and read our TV signals exist there, they will not learn for another 2 years that we have landed on the moon.  So even then, and they decided to launch craft to us we would likely not see them for several hundred years at the soonest.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

Mushroom said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > All earthlike planets in the goldilocks zone with Sun like G2 stars in the arms of spiral galaxies and have iron cores with magnetic fields will create life.
> ...


Ah, you are a follower of the earth-moon hypothesis. Perhaps that makes it easier, but I am not a student of that one. 

Chimps and dogs are very advanced creatures, chimps especially so.

There is no proof that intelligence is a positive selective trait. We just might turn out to be the shortest-lived species of any this planet has ever seen. The punchline of this is that the absence of alien visitors means nothing. 

I got into a very heated argument with other evolutionary biologists once about Planet of the Apes. They claimed it was bogus cuz they had horses. I argued the why not position.


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Rip a new one?  So scientists have no idea how life was created, you state you believe it is "magic", but if someone beleives it was God, then you'll attack them?  How is believing in a supernatural means of creation any more crazy than "magic"?   I'd love to hear your reasoning on how and why creationists and ID are crazy, yet you cannot provide one scientific theory to how life was created naturally.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Ah, you are a follower of the earth-moon hypothesis. Perhaps that makes it easier, but I am not a student of that one.
> 
> Chimps and dogs are very advanced creatures, chimps especially so.
> 
> ...



I am, because we can see that in our own solar system.  The planets that can possibly support life other than earth (and 2 others are on the fringes of the habitable zone) do not have life, and the evidence of multiple massive impacts are huge.

Now I do believe that Mars had the great potential for life.  But the death of it's molten core doomed any life that had been there at one time millions of years ago.

If nothing else, the Moon protects us from such events.  Either the gravity of the Moon nudging the rock into another orbit, or impacting it instead.  And the evidence on a high number of craters on the backside backs that up also.

And how long would it take for any intelligent species to go from their planet to say another body like Mars?  It has been almost 50 years since we stepped on the moon, but we have yet to go to Mars.  These are not straight line steps from one progression to the other, but expand greatly from one step to the next.  Without one step, it will take that much longer to reach the next one.

Humans had the mental capability to read and write since Neanderthal, but it is only fairly recently that Homo Sapiens Sapiens developed that degree of technology. 

And by "Intelligent Life", I mean having the capability to recognize a sense of self, and to recognize both cause and consequences.  Other than humans, no other animals fully have that capability.

And this goes back to the lack of Extinction Level Events.  The most common on our planet are collisions.  It took 65 million years for life to fully recover from the last such event, and if one was to happen again tomorrow it will likely be another 65 million years until it happened again.

Or it can even be a non-cosmic event.  Just look at Tambora.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> I got into a very heated argument with other evolutionary biologists once about Planet of the Apes. They claimed it was bogus cuz they had horses. I argued the why not position.



Then they were speaking from a preconceived position and not looking at it logically.

Even insects have been shown to "breed" other insects to work for them.

Taming another life form is not evolution, it is adaptation.  And in most cases, it is a 2 way street.  Horses could not carry humans, until humans first domesticated them and bred them for long enough through selective breeding to create the modern horse.  Not unlike we could not have dogs until we domesticated and bread the unwanted traits out of wolves.

Interestingly, in almost every case of domestication I can think of except 2 (pigs and cats), we harnessed their genetics to make them over in our image.  The animals we now know did not even exist before we started to tinker with them.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



Yep



> So scientists have no idea how life was created, you state you believe it is "magic",



You said that, not us. We are still arguing over it. It is even possible that life arose by many different mechanisms, each in competition with each other. PreCambrian fossils are full of evolutionary examples of early life biochemistry. What we know, is that one line of biochemistry took over on earth (mostly).

I said it appears to be magic. Something different.



> but if someone beleives it was God, then you'll attack them?



I will never attack your God. I am a reformed Southern Baptist. VERY reformed.



> How is believing in a supernatural means of creation any more crazy than "magic"?



Again, I did not call the God hypothesis crazy. I called creationists crazy. IDers admit to the age of the universe, history of fossils, plate tetonics and real science. Creationists do not.



> I'd love to hear your reasoning on how and why creationists and ID are crazy, yet you cannot provide one scientific theory to how life was created naturally.



Ok, let's start.

Who begat God? Where did God come from?

PS ~ This should send you for a drink. As a scientist, I cannot deny the possibility of God.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

For the rest of the class, that question is where I usually lose them. They have an origin problem too. 

Next question is to ask them to quote Genesis 1:26


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


You apparently do not understand science. Science does not prove anything. Science is a negative endeavor. We disprove previous guesses and make a new guess to fit the data.

The guess we call an hypothesis. We then submit our hypothesis to peer review and they do their best to rip it to shreds.

Once a hypothesis has survived a scientific food fight, it becomes a theory. 

Theories are difficult to destroy, but it does happen.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

Mushroom said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, you are a follower of the earth-moon hypothesis. Perhaps that makes it easier, but I am not a student of that one.
> ...


I am a believer of many organisms on earth having intelligence. I think it is a fallacy to claim that it must be human-like intelligence, or more ~ egocentric. Technology requires the physical ability to create things. We have evolved such mechanisms with bipedalism & the opposible thumb for grasping tools and writing.

Man, in a very real sense, has beaten evolution and is no longer under its influence. We control our environments. We control our gene pools. Last but not least, we have a breeding problem. Evolutionarily, these are not necessarily good things.

Enough humans would survive an extinction level event, but it would be ugly. Evolution would come back into play for humans and other species.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

Mushroom said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > I got into a very heated argument with other evolutionary biologists once about Planet of the Apes. They claimed it was bogus cuz they had horses. I argued the why not position.
> ...


Sorry, I was not clear enough. The argument was whether a different planet would evolve horses, as an aside. Nevermind that the movie was about earth which already had horses.

I argued that there are several evolutionary trends like cephalization, bilaterial symmetry, quadrapedilism that are not special earth-like inventions. Put them together you get horses. They might not look identical, but they would exist. In this argument, a camel, for example, is still a "horse".

You could say that as an evolutionary biologist I am a conservative. I am also a lumper and not a splitter. I do not believe in silicon-based life. Silicon cannot form chains. 

In a very real sense, when we find life elsewhere, it will be a letdown. It will look like earth's.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 24, 2017)

IsaacNewton said:


> Long distance space travel is no viable currently. We can probably make a manned trip to Mars but that is about it. Technology has a long way to go to get even close to being able to travel near the speed of light which is what would be required before thinking of interstellar travel. The closest star is 4 light years away. Even at the speed of light it would take a ship 4 years to get there. Oxygen, water, waste recycle/disposal, life support, for 4 years for a flight that is likely to not find another habitable planet. Even if they arrived and did find a livable planet it would take the message four years to get back here and at minimum another 4 years for another ship to travel there. 12 years.
> 
> There is likely a way to travel through space at faster than light speed, but until it is found, if ever, we're stuck here. Unmanned spacecraft will have to lead the way.


Matthew has an agenda.

While I fully support the space program, even if there is intelligent life out there (besides God), there is NO way for them to travel across the galaxy. The distances are far too vast.

He's been watching too much science FICTION.
.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Every moon rock planet and person comes from inside stars. Look it up


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The hawk is a caveman with an agenda


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


And the only reason we don't know is we aren't smart enough yet. We don't have enough information.

Certain types will say there isn't. Is it that they believe that or they want to believe that? Those are different things.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Long distance space travel is no viable currently. We can probably make a manned trip to Mars but that is about it. Technology has a long way to go to get even close to being able to travel near the speed of light which is what would be required before thinking of interstellar travel. The closest star is 4 light years away. Even at the speed of light it would take a ship 4 years to get there. Oxygen, water, waste recycle/disposal, life support, for 4 years for a flight that is likely to not find another habitable planet. Even if they arrived and did find a livable planet it would take the message four years to get back here and at minimum another 4 years for another ship to travel there. 12 years.
> ...


And I've already heard the christian defense when other intelligent life is found. Christians will say it doesn't matter. What's important is the Jesus experience is unique.

I would love to hear their religion/creation stories. I wonder if they would have one religion or 1000 like us.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


I don't think we know yet bro. In fact I think Mars had life on it billions of years before earth.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

theHawk said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > ThunderKiss1965 said:
> ...


Agreed. We don't know. It's YOU who claims to know.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 24, 2017)

Cling to your fantasies.

There is intelligent life out there who's already revealed Himself, but the ignorant have rejected Him for their fantasies.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Mushroom said:


> Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.
> 
> The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion      |     Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine


So it's not hard to imagine there are at least 5 other planets in the universe as advanced as us.

Maybe not only are they smarter they may be faster stronger and more humane. They may be able to withstand temperatures like tardigrades.

It's also very possible a meteor never hit those planets so they have dinosaurs


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Cling to your fantasies.
> 
> There is intelligent life out there who's already revealed Himself, but the ignorant have rejected Him for their fantasies.


Why did he only reveal himself in the most primitive part of the world 2000 years ago?

It's ignorant to doubt that nonsense? Never mind. I went to church last week and heard what nonsense they have you all repeat every week. You're brainwashed


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


So the creation story is no theory?


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 24, 2017)

Exploring Matthew's sci-fi fantasies, please explain HOW any other intelligent life could travel here.

All the sci-fi nonsense is pure nonsense by those living in their own fantasy world.  They cannot get here from there.


----------



## Votto (Jul 24, 2017)

Damn it, I know you are up there, you can't hide from me forever.

Pay your fair share of universal health care!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > Long distance space travel is no viable currently. We can probably make a manned trip to Mars but that is about it. Technology has a long way to go to get even close to being able to travel near the speed of light which is what would be required before thinking of interstellar travel. The closest star is 4 light years away. Even at the speed of light it would take a ship 4 years to get there. Oxygen, water, waste recycle/disposal, life support, for 4 years for a flight that is likely to not find another habitable planet. Even if they arrived and did find a livable planet it would take the message four years to get back here and at minimum another 4 years for another ship to travel there. 12 years.
> ...


It's always the religions who've held back scientific progress. We will never. It can't be done. We are the only ones. 

If we listened to religion we wouldn't know the big bang theory or that evolution is how we happened.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Votto said:


> Damn it, I know you are up there, you can't hide from me forever.
> 
> Pay your fair share of universal health care!


Imagine if we put all the money we piss away on nukes and war into getting to Mars and mining the meteor belt. Us china North Korea Israel Russia Europe. All the money we all spend. We'd be so much better off if we taught science instead of religion. Religion is how the elite control the masses. Who are we at war with now? Christians vs Muslims. 

There's a smarter species out there


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jul 24, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Exploring Matthew's sci-fi fantasies, please explain HOW any other intelligent life could travel here.
> 
> All the sci-fi nonsense is pure nonsense by those living in their own fantasy world.  They cannot get here from there.



You don't know. Nobody knows yet. It may be that we are stuck here and there is no travel faster than light, which I highly doubt as space itself is expanding fast than the speed of light so it is possible. Whether we or any intelligent civilization can survive long enough to figure out how to do that remains to be seen. There may be a galaxy 3 billion light years away that has millions of planets with intelligent life. Nobody knows yet and we may never know.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> If we listened to religion we wouldn't know the big bang theory o



It's physically IMPOSSIBLE to travel to another star. For us and for "them" to visit us.

You claim to worship science, but you live a fantasy


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> There's a smarter species out there


Yeah, but He's not flesh and blood, and He created you and the planet you're sitting on.


----------



## Votto (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Damn it, I know you are up there, you can't hide from me forever.
> ...



That is one way of looking at things.

Anther way of looking at things is, what threatens humanity?  Is it religion, or is it the science that gave life to the use of fossil fuels and global warming?  

Is it the Bible, or is it WMD's?

Is Jesus the cause for our concern, or is it genetically altered foods that cannot reproduce?

Is the cause of our concern those religion that teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves, or is it science that produces Ai, a man-made created artificial intelligence that does not have a conscience?  How will this Ai treat humans who are "destroying" the planet?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> For the rest of the class, that question is where I usually lose them. They have an origin problem too.
> 
> Next question is to ask them to quote Genesis 1:26


Incorrect since what is outside the Universe is unknown.  "Eternal" has an important meaning here.

As for Genesis, only if you take the Bible literally.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > If we listened to religion we wouldn't know the big bang theory o
> ...


Right now at top speed it would take 80 thousand years. And we have an idea how the ship would work. We can produce food and water.

The honest truth is, who cares about another planet that can harbor life? We already live on one. What we need to do is master the universe. Science might one day do that. Religion wont


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Nice spin.  Now go try that in an elementary school science class.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 24, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> As for Genesis, only if you take the Bible literally.


He meant what He said.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Right now at top speed it would take 80 thousand years. And we have an idea how the ship would work. We can produce food and water.
> 
> The honest truth is, who cares about another planet that can harbor life? We already live on one. What we need to do is master the universe. Science might one day do that. Religion wont


My responses were in response to Matthew's belief that we could ever be visited by any other life.

It CAN'T and WON'T, even if they could exist.

Even if lightspeed were possible, being physical creatures,traveling to the nearest star would take MUCH longer than 4 years. We will NEVER leave our solar system, and they will never come here.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

Mushroom said:


> Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.
> 
> The Odds That We’re the Only Advanced Species in the Galaxy Are One in 60 Billion      |     Daily Planet | Air & Space Magazine


Good point, but we're still stuck with the Fermi Paradox:
Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute
_The remark came while Fermi was discussing with his mealtime mates the possibility that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. They thought it reasonable to assume that we have a lot of cosmic company. But somewhere between one sentence and the next, Fermi's supple brain realized that if this was true, it implied something profound. If there are really a lot of alien societies, then some of them might have spread out.

Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and an immodest amount of imperial incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of empire. Ten million years may sound long, but in fact it's quite short compared with the age of the Galaxy, which is roughly ten thousand million years. Colonization of the Milky Way should be a quick exercise.

So what Fermi immediately realized was that the aliens have had more than enough time to pepper the Galaxy with their presence. But looking around, he didn't see any clear indication that they're out and about. This prompted Fermi to ask what was (to him) an obvious question: "where is everybody?"

This sounds a bit silly at first. The fact that aliens don't seem to be walking our planet apparently implies that there are no extraterrestrials anywhere among the vast tracts of the Galaxy. Many researchers consider this to be a radical conclusion to draw from such a simple observation. Surely there is a straightforward explanation for what has become known as the Fermi Paradox. There must be some way to account for our apparent loneliness in a galaxy that we assume is filled with other clever beings.

A lot of folks have given this thought. The first thing they note is that the Fermi Paradox is a remarkably strong argument. You can quibble about the speed of alien spacecraft, and whether they can move at 1 percent of the speed of light or 10 percent of the speed of light. It doesn't matter. You can argue about how long it would take for a new star colony to spawn colonies of its own. It still doesn't matter. Any halfway reasonable assumption about how fast colonization could take place still ends up with time scales that are profoundly shorter than the age of the Galaxy. It's like having a heated discussion about whether Spanish ships of the 16th century could heave along at two knots or twenty. Either way they could speedily colonize the Americas.

Consequently, scientists in and out of the SETI community have conjured up other arguments to deal with the conflict between the idea that aliens should be everywhere and our failure (so far) to find them. In the 1980s, dozens of papers were published to address the Fermi Paradox. They considered technical and sociological arguments for why the aliens weren't hanging out nearby. Some even insisted that there was no paradox at all: the reason we don't see evidence of extraterrestrials is because there aren't any._


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > As for Genesis, only if you take the Bible literally.
> ...


Who?  The Bible was canonized by a group of guys in 325AD, it wasn't handed down by God as the Ten Commandments were to Moses.   Do you only accept the King James interpretation?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Votto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Love the neighbor? Is that what religions teach? I missed that sermon.

And Christianity is but one of many religions. Not the first or last.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Do you believe God told Moses those ten things?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Did you pick that up with your antenna or did it come to you in a dream?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> > Based on recent exoplanet discoveries, Frank and Sullivan assume that one-fifth of all stars have habitable planets in orbit around them. This leads them to conclude that there should be other advanced technological civilization out there, unless the chance for developing such a civilization on a habitable planet in the observable universe is less than 1 in 1024 (a 1 with 24 zeros!). For our own Milky Way galaxy, the odds of being the only technologically advanced civilization are 1 in 60 billion. Thus, it’s very likely that other intelligent, technologically advanced species evolved before us. Even if only one in every million stars hosts a technologically advanced species today, that would still yield a total of about 300,000 such civilizations in the whole galaxy.
> ...


There are lots of arguments that contradict this argument. They could have visited billions of years ago when trilobites ruled.

Maybe they did seed our planet. We don't know how life got started. 

Maybe they are watching us and we don't know it.

Maybe the pharohs and kings were aliens who breed us into humans from monkeys?

No one knows but religion claims to know all the answers. Not buying it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Right now at top speed it would take 80 thousand years. And we have an idea how the ship would work. We can produce food and water.
> ...


Voyager 1 and 2 left our solar system. We are developing iPad size spacebot and wind sails that can get to alpha centuri. Maybe we seed that planet and in 1 billion years those humans think they are alone. Then when we can we send David Blane or David Copperfield to perform a few miracles then give them the king James and bounce


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


It seems like it. I think we are going to find life was once on Mars.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Mushroom said:
> ...


Yes, lots of arguments, not a shred of evidence.  Why? 

People who claim their religion is "the true religion" are fooling themselves.  Religion is a path to spiritual enlightenment much like a martial art is a path to self-defense.  To say only one is the correct one and all others are false is to totally misunderstand the point.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Again, a nice theory without a shred of evidence.

As it happens, I'm almost finished reading "The Martian".  It's great.  Unfortunately, the latest evidence is that the soil of Mars may be toxic to life: 

Mars Soil May Be Toxic to Microbes


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

I see the Religionists ignored my questions.

Happens every time


----------



## theHawk (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Hey moron, I am well aware every element we are made of comes from dead stars.  I did not dispute that, you said microbes get frozen in space.  A microbe is a complex single cell life form and could not possibly form in space.




microbe
ˈmʌɪkrəʊb/
_noun_

a microorganism, especially a bacterium causing disease or fermentation.
synonyms: microorganism, bacillus, bacterium, virus, germ; 
_informal_bug


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Mushroom said:
> ...



Indeed, the troll knows how to use google, but he is very lazy.

*Fermi paradox[edit]*
_Main article: Fermi paradox
The pessimists' most telling argument in the SETI debate stems not from theory or conjecture but from an actual observation: the presumed lack of extraterrestrial contact.[6] A civilization lasting for tens of millions of years might be able to travel anywhere in the galaxy, even at the slow speeds foreseeable with our own kind of technology. Furthermore, no confirmed signs of intelligence elsewhere have been recognized as such, either in our galaxy or in the observable universe of 2 trillion galaxies.[70][71] According to this line of thinking, the tendency to fill up all available territory seems to be a universal trait of living things, so the Earth should have already been colonized, or at least visited, but no evidence of this exists. Hence Fermi's question "Where is everybody?".[72][73]

A large number of explanations have been proposed to explain this lack of contact; a book published in 2015 elaborated on 75 different explanations.[74] In terms of the Drake Equation, the explanations can be divided into three classes:
_

_Few intelligent civilizations ever arise. This is an argument that at least one of the first few terms, R∗ · fp · ne · fl · fi, has a low value. The most common suspect is, fi, but explanations such as the rare Earth hypothesis argue that ne is the small term._
_Intelligent civilizations exist, but we see no evidence, meaning fc is small. Typical arguments include that civilizations are too far apart, it is too expensive to spread throughout the galaxy, civilizations broadcast signals for only a brief period of time, it is dangerous to communicate, and many others._
_The lifetime of intelligent, communicative civilizations is short, meaning the value of L is small. Drake suggested that a large number of extraterrestrial civilizations would form, and he further speculated that the lack of evidence of such civilizations may be because technological civilizations tend to disappear rather quickly. Typical explanations include it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others, they tend to experience a technological singularity, and others._
_These lines of reasoning lead to the Great Filter hypothesis,[75] which states that since there are no observed extraterrestrial civilizations, despite the vast number of stars, then some step in the process must be acting as a filter to reduce the final value. According to this view, either it is very hard for intelligent life to arise, or the lifetime of such civilizations, or the period of time they reveal their existence, must be relatively short.
_
Drake equation - Wikipedia

I believe both of those to be true. Moreso, Fermi assumes a civilization has the ability and also the desire to take multi-generational space voyages and then colonize. He also forgets simple things like food, fuel, physics & especially the extreme cost. It is too simplistic to even consider.



> Maybe they did seed our planet. We don't know how life got started.
> 
> Maybe they are watching us and we don't know it.
> 
> ...


The hypothesis Earth was seeded from outside by either aliens or life containing impact begs the question. The question then becomes where did they come from? It is the same as the Religionists have with who begat God?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

LOL

I just went to the troll's link

Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute

The title

*Our Galaxy Should Be Teeming With Civilizations, But Where Are They?*

No no no!

Our galaxy is teeming with life. Intelligence, especially intelligence with bodies to use that intelligence to make Civilizations is extremely rare.

Remember folks, it is not just intelligence. The other great apes are intelligent. They do not have the body architecture to put that intelligence to work. Same with dolphins.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

Now as for alien visitation, how long have we had to notice? Maybe a couple of hundred years? Before that, they would have been burned at the stake for being witches, or perhaps worshiped as God. 

With as warlike as the human species appears to be, would you visit in plain sight, or hide?

How long did Jesus last once he came out of the closet?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Because it's too far away for our puny brains to find or see.

Because instead of a space race we are in an arms race and war with another religion.

Why? Because we are primitive and new. 

We are getting there. Be patient. We would never find out if all humans were as negative as you. Luckily we have smart ones who are positive


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> I see the Religionists ignored my questions.
> 
> Happens every time


Religionists?  Who are those?  Why did you ignore my reply?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> LOL
> 
> I just went to the troll's link
> 
> Fermi Paradox | SETI Institute...


Ahhh, once again the name-calling comes out whenever Mark lacks intellectual responses.  Sad.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


While the human race would, indeed, be better off focusing on exploration than war, the fact remains human nature is still very primitive, tribal and competitive.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > I see the Religionists ignored my questions.
> ...



It dawned on me this morning coming into work.  Ok, so basically religious people think that life happening on earth was "a miracle".  And it sure does seem like one doesn't it?  I mean, for the earth to be in the right place/distance from the sun and how the moon helps life happen and then if the meteor didn't hit dinosaurs would still rule.  So I see why religous people think we are alone and that it's highly unlikely that all these things happened by chance, or without some divine help.  But take into account that for billions of years earth was not friendly to life.  It took a long time for conditions to be right.  And someday life will stop existing on this planet.  So it makes sense that eventually, around every star, life will eventually happen.  

And it may be happening more than just here on earth.  Europa may have life in it.  

I think this is why religous people don't want to find life anywhere else.  They want to think we are all their is.  Because that would help confirm that we are special.

But also notice that even if we found other life, that wouldn't stop believers from believing.  So I don't even think even you guys understand why you don't want there to be life elsewhere.  It goes against the thinking that you are special and that it was a miracle.  It's not a miracle.  It's a scientifically explainable thing.  We just don't know how life got started.

And yes, when a star explodes it spews out life.  Did I use the word microbe?  Clearly I'm not a scientist.  Maybe it was a fungus or protein or amino acid or bacteria.  Point is, life spews out of stars and that's where life on earth came from.  This makes a lot more sense than thinking god waved his wand and land creatures appeared.  And it's crazy that I'm not joking.  You guys literally believe that a god willed/wished it and then land creatures, birds, reptiles, fish, mammals all magically appeared.  Seriously?  This is your "theory"?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them. 

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out. 

_“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _– Douglas Adams


----------



## fncceo (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> when a star explodes it spews out life.



Life that can withstand a supernova explosion?

Have you thought this through?

Stellar explosions create heavy elements, which are required for life.  But, not life itself. 

The combination of elements to create life requires a slightly more tranquil environment.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > when a star explodes it spews out life.
> ...




He says I'm right.


----------



## miketx (Jul 25, 2017)

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > when a star explodes it spews out life.
> ...


And liberals say conservatives don't understand science. If the Earths sun went nova right now, we would cease to exist in about 8 minutes. Probably take out Mars and the asteroid belt as well and maybe Jupiter. Might be good for Saturns moons to warm up though....


----------



## fncceo (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You're misunderstanding him.  Our constituent elements are made of star stuff.  Not organic life.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Scientifically, there is no evidence of other life forms.  That's all it means.  

While we can extrapolate the idea that if it happened once, it can happen again, the fact we've found no signs of other civilizations, much less any signs of extraterrestrial life, is a very curious issue.  Perhaps we're missing something.


----------



## miketx (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


They are too far away, and cannot communicate with us due the the limitation of the speed of light. That, or they have somehow discovered us and said, Hell no!


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


"religious people" are not a homogeneous group.  Beliefs vary in both content and degree.  Among Protestants alone, their beliefs can vary from "creationists" to a belief that God created the Big Bang and let it go at that.

Through fusion, stars create heavier elements, but not "microbes" or life.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

fncceo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



So we don't know yet?

*Abiogenesis* or informally, the *origin of life*,is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.  Abiogenesis is studied through a combination of paleontology, laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the characteristics of modern organisms, and aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life on Earth.

One day we will know.

Or do you claim to already know how life got started?

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

How did life begin? There can hardly be a bigger question. For much of human history, almost everyone believed some version of "the gods did it". Any other explanation was inconceivable.

That is no longer true. Over the last century, a few scientists have tried to figure out how the first life might have sprung up. They have even tried to recreate this Genesis moment in their labs: to create brand-new life from scratch.

So far nobody has managed it, but we have come a long way. Today, many of the scientists studying the origin of life are confident that they are on the right track – and they have the experiments to back up their confidence.

This is the story of our quest to discover our ultimate origin. It is a story of obsession, struggle and brilliant creativity, which encompasses some of the greatest discoveries of modern science. The endeavour to understand life's beginnings has sent men and women to the furthest corners of our planet. Some of the scientists involved have been bedevilled as monsters, while others had to do their work under the heel of brutal totalitarian governments.

This is the story of the birth of life on Earth.

The secret of how life on Earth began


----------



## fncceo (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Urey-Miller experiment.  Organic molecules can be created from inorganic compounds present in primitive atmospheres.

This experiment has been replicated thousands of times in labs around the world.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

If we assume that life formed on Earth – which seems reasonable, given that we have not yet found it anywhere else – then it must have done so in the billion years between Earth coming into being and the preservation of the oldest known fossils.

As well as narrowing down when life began, we can make an educated guess at what it was.

Since the 19th Century, biologists have known that all living things are made of "cells": tiny bags of living matter that come in different shapes and sizes. Cells were first discovered in the 17th Century, when the first modern microscopes were invented, but it took well over a century for anyone to realise that they were the basis of all life.

You might not think you look much like a catfish or a _Tyrannosaurus rex_, but a microscope will reveal that you are all made of pretty similar kinds of cells. So are plants and fungi.

But by far the most numerous forms of life are microorganisms, each of which is made up of just one cell. Bacteria are the most famous group, and they are found everywhere on Earth.

This means we can define the problem of the origin of life more precisely. Using only the materials and conditions found on the Earth over 3.5 billion years ago, we have to make a cell.

For most of history, it was not really considered necessary to ask how life began, because the answer seemed obvious.  God did it.  Before the 1800s, most people believed in "vitalism". This is the intuitive idea that living things were endowed with a special, magical property that made them different from inanimate objects.

Vitalism was often bound up with cherished religious beliefs. The Bible says that God used "the breath of life" to animate the first humans, and the immortal soul is a form of vitalism.

There is just one problem. Vitalism is plain wrong.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

By the early 1800s, scientists had discovered several substances that seemed to be unique to life. One such chemical was urea, which is found in urine and was isolated in 1799.

This was still, just, compatible with vitalism. Only living things seemed to be able to make these chemicals, so perhaps they were infused with life energy and that was what made them special.

But in 1828, the German chemist Friedrich Wöhler found a way to make urea from a common chemical called ammonium cyanate, which had no obvious connection with living things. Others followed in his footsteps, and it was soon clear that the chemicals of life can all be made from simpler chemicals that have nothing to do with life.

This was the end of vitalism as a scientific concept. But people found it profoundly hard to let go of the idea. For many, saying that there is nothing "special" about the chemicals of life seemed to rob life of its magic, to reduce us to mere machines. It also, of course, contradicted the Bible.

Still, after 1828 scientists had legitimate reasons to look for a deity-free explanation for how the first life formed. But they did not. It seems like an obvious subject to explore, but in fact the mystery of life's origin was ignored for decades. Perhaps everyone was still too emotionally attached to vitalism to take the next step.

vi·tal·ism
ˈvīdlˌizəm/
_noun_

the belief that the origin and phenomena of life are dependent on a force or principle distinct from purely chemical or physical forces.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



Ok, but whatever creates life, originally came from within a star.  Or maybe not.  Maybe if you fuck with dark matter it creates the things that create life.

I have to admit, I don't have all the answers.  But neither do you.  So when you stump me, it doesn't prove god did it.  You know that right?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> How did life begin? There can hardly be a bigger question. For much of human history, almost everyone believed some version of "the gods did it". Any other explanation was inconceivable.
> 
> That is no longer true. Over the last century, a few scientists have tried to figure out how the first life might have sprung up. They have even tried to recreate this Genesis moment in their labs: to create brand-new life from scratch.
> 
> ...


It appears we have a "God gene". I would assume evolved with intelligence. Humans invent Gods to explain the unexplainable. Poor crops, sickness, etc. Every civilization invented a religion.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > I see the Religionists ignored my questions.
> ...


It should be obvious who Religionists are, you just are not smart enough. It is a play on words, since they call us Evolutionists.

As for your reply, there was nothing there.

You wanna throw some meat into the game? What's your hypothesis on the origin of life? Or will you continue to troll?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

Fun with the Bible

*Genesis 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)*
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:26 - New King James Version

1) our image, our likeness ~ Religionists have a tough time with this one. We look like God

2) Our ~ Mentioned twice. Not my image, my likeness. How many Gods are there?

It sounds like God was talking to an audience of other humanlike gods. Did they then vote?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No doubt all elements heavier than hydrogen were forged in a star.

Finding out what dark matter and dark energy are will add to our knowledge of the Universe in which we live.  Their role in life is unknown since we don't even know what they are.

I don' known the answers either, only the questions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > If we listened to religion we wouldn't know the big bang theory o
> ...


It is not physically impossible. In fact we have evidence that it is quite literally possible.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Exactly.  Every once in awhile I have to remind myself what their theory is.  As they make fun and argue with us, I remember that their story is that man was made out of dust and women were made out of man's ribs.

And God poofed fully grown land animals into existence.  They didn't evolve into what they are now.  No no.  

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Fun with the Bible
> 
> *Genesis 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)*
> 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
> ...


Freudian slip?  Maybe the authors of the bible accidentally said US instead of ME or MY.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > If we listened to religion we wouldn't know the big bang theory o
> ...



Yes, impossible today.  BUT, a fully accelerated Bussard ramscoop, if we could build such a thing, would be capable of reaching nearby galaxies without taking so long that the crew would die along the way. Time dilation is handy that way.

Bussard [1] proposed a ramjet variant of a fusion rocket capable of reasonable interstellar travel, using enormous electromagnetic fields (ranging from kilometers to many thousands of kilometers in diameter) as a ram scoop to collect and compress hydrogen from the interstellar medium. High speeds force the reactive mass into a progressively constricted magnetic field, compressing it until thermonuclear fusion occurs. The magnetic field then directs the energy as rocket exhaust opposite to the intended direction of travel, thereby accelerating the vessel.

Make a semi-organic clone with skin and nerves 3D printed over a mechanical body, the human on earth enters a chamber where his body goes into a coma and his mind resides now in the mechanical one, memories are copied in real time to the body in a coma. A special machine developed solely to let the "clones" reproduct with the human DNA. The chamber wakes the human in case of any loss of connection or in case the body re-enters one of the chambers that hold the body. The body is upgrades everytime it's accessed but possesses an on board AI that learns about the person to be able to reproduct its personality in cases of emergency where the original person can't be reached or a virtual copy of his mind. That would allow to live and reproduct in two diferent planet's switching between them instantly.
Option 2: Teleporter equiped space drones. 
Option 3: Space warping, a.k.a. now you're thinking with portals.

A lot of crazy hypothesis'.  None of them are possible yet but one day one of these crazy genious' will figure out everything you say is impossible.  They always do.  

My grandmother always said there isn't anything you can think of that can't be done eventually.  If you can think it then it can be done.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Even if we accept the Religionist origin hypothesis, it does not make Abiogenesis false. It could be both.

What is really funny, is when they accuse us of magic. Magic is exactly what their God hypothesis is. God apparently can teleport, make space warps, time travel, all the scifi stuff.

1969 was a very tough year for my grandmother. She said if God wanted us on the moon, he would have put us there.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Back when I still believed in god(s) but rejected every religion I was sure that god planted the life seed on earth and then evolution kicked in after that.  In other words if something created us it just planted the seed and left.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...



Regarding this:  And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

I have heard religionists say "1 day to god could be a billion or million years".  So even this quote "let the land produce...."  could just be an allegory not to be taken literally.  This could just mean god planted the life seed 3.8 billion years ago and knew eventually all the diversity we see today would eventually appear.   

In other words just because old religionists think god POOFED land animals onto the land, that doesn't mean he had to have literally poofed them in a moments notice.  

If they decided to accept evolution as a fact then they would then be able to convince themselves that god did it and that the creation story is just another allegory.

"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." was just another allegory.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Agreed.  It's a technological problem.  Nothing that requires magic, divine intervention or anything else that violates the natural laws of the Universe.  Now, doing it like we see in the movies is another matter.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ....I have heard religionists say "1 day to god could be a billion or million years".  So even this quote "let the land produce...."  could just be an allegory not to be taken literally.  This could just mean god planted the life seed 3.8 billion years ago and knew eventually all the diversity we see today would eventually appear.
> 
> In other words just because old religionists think god POOFED land animals onto the land, that doesn't mean he had to have literally poofed them in a moments notice.
> 
> ...


IMO, you're making the same mistake as Duffy; putting anyone who believes in a spiritual entity in the same box.  In this case, it's commonly understood that you and Duffy are talking about Christians, not Muslims or Jews.  Even so, there are dozens, if not hundreds of Christian denominations in the US.  The graphic and link below not only delineates the most common ones, but gives a percentage on how many accept evolution.   

FWIW, I fully accept evolution as a matter of fact.  This doesn't mean a "God" still couldn't have created the Big Bang and set it all into motion knowing that 13.8 Billion years later we'd be talking about it on the Internet. It only means there are discrepancies between what we know of the Universe and how Genesis describes the beginning of the Universe...not to mention its age.

What do Christians REALLY Believe about Evolution? | NCSE


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


As a matter of Fact that IS the only version I accept.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...


Why?  Why is only the King James version the only acceptable version of the Bible?  

Do you take Genesis literally?  That the world is only about 6000 years old? That God created Adam then Eve?  Who did their children mate with to have grandchildren for Adam and Eve?  

How about Noah's family after the Flood?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Ya we are missing the ability through technology to check distant systems with anything remotely like an ability to tell if life resides on any planets.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


In Genesis it is clear that Cain went and lived with OTHER people. The bible is not a source to claim only those God Created were on the Earth. As for 6000 years only a fool believes that as we have reams of data to prove life existed before then.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Fun with the Bible
> 
> *Genesis 1:26New King James Version (NKJV)*
> 26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
> ...


He was talking to the Angels which he also made.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


SETI is pretty good at listening for radio signals or another signs that an advanced civilization could send, but agreed we don't presently have a means to visually determine if there is life on other worlds.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Fun with the Bible
> ...


King James?  You know he didn't do it himself, right?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt 

https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/upl...iles/2011_summer/BiT_Summer_2011_Campbell.pdf
_The origins of the translation that we know as the King James Version lie in the Hampton Court Conference of January 1604, when King James I assembled a group of bishops and moderate Puritans to discuss the grievances of Puritans who thought that the Church of England retained too many ceremonial vestiges of its Catholic past. The Puritans were unable to secure the reforms that they desired, but one proposal not on the agenda was to prove of historic importance. On the second day of the conference (16 January), according to William Barlow’s Sum and Substance of the Conference (1604), John Rainolds – the president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford – proposed ‘that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those that were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the original’. This account is puzzling, because it refers to the Great Bible that was in use in the early sixteenth century rather than the Bishops’ Bible (1568, revised 1572) which was the version used in England in 1604. Clearly something has been lost in the retelling, but whatever was said, the king was happy to take up the suggestion. Indeed, three years earlier, when, as James VI of Scotland, the king had attended the General Assembly of the Kirk at Burntisland (Fife), he had supported the idea of a new translation......_


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Life on other planets may not be technologically advanced. Or it may just be starting out. You assume that the nearer systems must have intelligent life with no basis for that to be assumed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> RetiredGySgt
> 
> https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/upl...iles/2011_summer/BiT_Summer_2011_Campbell.pdf
> _The origins of the translation that we know as the King James Version lie in the Hampton Court Conference of January 1604, when King James I assembled a group of bishops and moderate Puritans to discuss the grievances of Puritans who thought that the Church of England retained too many ceremonial vestiges of its Catholic past. The Puritans were unable to secure the reforms that they desired, but one proposal not on the agenda was to prove of historic importance. On the second day of the conference (16 January), according to William Barlow’s Sum and Substance of the Conference (1604), John Rainolds – the president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford – proposed ‘that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those that were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the original’. This account is puzzling, because it refers to the Great Bible that was in use in the early sixteenth century rather than the Bishops’ Bible (1568, revised 1572) which was the version used in England in 1604. Clearly something has been lost in the retelling, but whatever was said, the king was happy to take up the suggestion. Indeed, three years earlier, when, as James VI of Scotland, the king had attended the General Assembly of the Kirk at Burntisland (Fife), he had supported the idea of a new translation......_


The King James is the most accurate and it is the only acceptable Bible as far as I am concerned, none of your nay saying or other information will change that. If I must I will simply rely on FAITH as to why I believe that.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Our star formed late in the formation of the Milky Way galaxy.  We're millions of years behind those stars closer to the center.

Estimating the Age of the Milky Way - Universe Today
....._The Sun and its planetary system was formed about 4,560 million years ago, but many other stars formed much earlier. Some of the oldest stars in the Milky Way are found in large stellar clusters, in particular in “globular clusters” (PR Photo 23a/04), so called because of their spheroidal shape.

Stars belonging to a globular cluster were born together, from the same cloud and at the same time. Since stars of different masses evolve at different rates, it is possible to measure the age of globular clusters with a reasonably good accuracy. The oldest ones are found to be more than 13,000 million years old.._...


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt
> ...


Obviously you're as free to believe that Bible is the one and only version as others are to believe it's not.  I was just curious about your beliefs and reasoning.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


But not to the stars closest to us. And I suggest you reread your science if the signal was far enough away chances are it missed us entirely or was so degraded we can not recognize it as a signal. Further just because life may evolve on NUMEROUS planets does not mean intelligent tool using life evolved capable of space travel or science.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Globular clusters are halo objects, much farther from the center than our sun. They are the remnants of the milky way disk formation. The leftovers, the losers.






The sun is a population I metal-rich star. Globulars are older population II stars, extremely light in heavy elements (basically pure hydrogen with some helium from hydrogen burning). Population I stars are made from population II supernovae.

Yeah, the numbers are backwards, but we were idiots when we named them.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In Genesis it is clear that Cain went and lived with OTHER people. The bible is not a source to claim only those God Created were on the Earth. As for 6000 years only a fool believes that as we have reams of data to prove life existed before then


6000 years ago ADAM was CREATED. The earth was RESTORED, not created 6000 years ago.

Adam was given "the spirit of Man." Read into that what you will about the other humanoids on earth at the time.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


The center of the galaxy is waay too hostile to have life, agreed. Life occurs in the safe outer spiral arms.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Fun with the Bible
> ...


When did God create the angels?

So angels before the universe. Ahem. It's getting really crowded before creation. 

Perhaps you can quote the Bible where he created angels?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > In Genesis it is clear that Cain went and lived with OTHER people. The bible is not a source to claim only those God Created were on the Earth. As for 6000 years only a fool believes that as we have reams of data to prove life existed before then
> ...


Oh so this is the new creationist myth. It is only Adam @ 6K. LOL

Did the rest of the humans rent Eden to them?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

The modern IDers have adjusted their timelines. You creationists need to catch up with God.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Pick a version, troll. Knock yourself out

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Should we remind him that the Bible does not say 6000 years old? Naw


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt
> ...


True, except for the politics. Lots of very cool gospels were ignored.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Oh so this is the new creationist myth. It is only Adam @ 6K. L


There are many theories. We don't all have the same beliefs. I'm an advocate for this one.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Jesus was the first one he created and he made many more including Satan.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Oh so this is the new creationist myth. It is only Adam @ 6K. L
> ...


You do not need to believe Bishop Ussher's math. He made a good guess that fit the data of the time. The easy explanation is God is a busy guy. He did not put everyone into the Bible. It helps to explain the outside Eden creation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


The Bible clearly states that man can not know God's time. So no one can FIGURE OUT when Adam was created. But as to other Humans God was clear on that too, Cain went to live with them.


----------



## Correll (Jul 25, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?




60% of the fed budget is mandatory entitlement spending and that percentage is forever growing.

There will be no big space program in our lifetimes because of that.

Deal with it.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...


That is a cop out. We use human time. The 6K is in human time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > MarkDuffy said:
> ...


Human time is not God's time and as he stated we can not fathom his time so NO man or woman can know when Adam was created.


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


I agree with the last half and do not agree that you need the first half.

Again we deal with human time. God can have any time he wants. I do not hold him to 24 hour days during creation. 

You all have to deal with Paleolithic farmers 12,000 years ago.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 25, 2017)

*Believe in aliens? Then you're probably an atheist or Muslim: Study reveals how religion affects your likelihood of believing in ET*

*How religion affects your likelihood of believing in ET | Daily Mail Online*


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

MarkDuffy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Even in the center stars are very far away from each other. Usually anyways


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

Isn't it true our Galaxy will eventually cross over another and no stars will touch? I saw something about this on the cosmos


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Agreed with all of your statement except the claim that God didn't create the other people Cain went to or who Adam and Eve's children mated to produce grandchildren.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Isn't it true our Galaxy will eventually cross over another and no stars will touch? I saw something about this on the cosmos


Correct.  The Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy are fated to collide with nary a star touching.   Awesome, eh?

Four billion years from now:
Milky Way Has 4 Billion Years to Live — But Our Sun Will Survive

A truly beautiful dance of physics:


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?


I searched all over the net and can't find anyone who makes the argument that we are alone.  And it seems religion is the main reason anyone thinks we are alone. They'll use scientific information to say it's all too perfect so must be a miracle. Anything this perfect must have a creator. Well, maybe not. 

And anything we don't know must be god.

If anyone can find someone on the internet claiming we are alone I'd love to hear their arguments.

Or are the people who believe we are alone not credible? Probably a response to all their arguments so you only find the nutters here.

Give me a link please of someone claiming we are probably alone. 

Even religious people here conceed we probably aren't alone. The ones who deny refuse to admit they are ignorant


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 25, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Obviously true, but not what I claimed.  Do the math: 
How Many Stars Are in the Milky Way?
_So is there any way to figure out how many stars are for sure? In the end, it comes down to an estimate. In one calculation, the Milky Way has a mass of about 100 billion solar masses,* so it is easiest to translate that to 100 billion stars*. This accounts for the stars that would be bigger or smaller than our sun, and averages them out. Other mass estimates bring the number up to *400 billion*_. 


How Many Galaxies Are There?
...._.Estimating how many galaxies are throughout the universe is a tougher job, however. Sheer numbers is one problem — once the count gets into *the billions*, it takes a while to do the addition_.....

Even if the chances of advanced life are 0.0000000000000001, that's still leaves a lot of alien life forms running around the Universe.....if ours is the only one.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


People who deny the idea that we are probably not alone are thinking really small. They probably think if there were other planets with life god would have mentioned it. Since the men who wrote the holy books didn't have telescopes they thought we were all there was and the center of it all. 

But if there is a god then the universe is the most interesting collection of trillions of stars that have life, each one unique. Like snowflakes no two are exactly the same


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it true our Galaxy will eventually cross over another and no stars will touch? I saw something about this on the cosmos
> ...


Maybe then it will be easier to interstellar travel. Won't we be closer to other stars when they cross?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


I never said God did not create them. Perhaps you can highlight for me where I said that?


----------



## SixFoot (Jul 26, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




The Bible says God first created Adam and Eve. It doesn't talk about the other people He created because it wasn't pertinent to the story.

The Bible says God created life on Earth. It doesn't talk about all the other planets with life on them because it wasn't pertinent to the story.

The Bible says Noah's family were the only survivors in their region. It didn't talk about other regions and the other survivors because it wasn't pertinent to the story. lol


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 26, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It won't happen for four billion years.  Hopefully we'd have developed something better than an oversized aluminum beer can for transportation.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 26, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


The KJV doesn't mention it.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 26, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


The whole idea of the Flood was to wipe out everyone but Noah and his family.  Are you saying the story is misleading?  That the entire world wasn't flooded or that there were other boats?


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 26, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> It doesn't talk about all the other planets with life on them because it wasn't pertinent to the story.


So far, there is NO evidence of life in any other planet. It's all just speculation.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 26, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



Maybe a floating planet/spaceship?  This is why I want to mine the meteor belt that's close to mars.  First step is get to mars.  

I can't imagine there is a planet better than ours, except for maybe a young virgin planet younger than ours.  

We need to be able to bounce from star to star.  Or live on something we've made that we can move if a meteor is coming.  Maybe even if they just hover by Mars and never leave our solar system.  But one day hopefully they will.


----------



## task0778 (Jul 26, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



_First step is to get to Mars. _  I think we will, it's only a question of when.

_I can't imagine there is a planet better than ours _  Nothing wrong with this planet it's a beautiful place but we need to do better at keeping it clean.
_
Or live on something we've made that we can move if a meteor is coming._   Wouldn't it be easier to move the meteor?   Hard to believe we're spending gobs of money on nuclear weapons to kill each other instead of planetary defensive systems to prevent a meteor/asteroid from crashing into the planet and wiping our humanity and many other species.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 26, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Yes it does specifically in the Cain story.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 26, 2017)

task0778 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...


Human nature.  When you figure out how to change that, let me know.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 26, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


There are several curious inconsistencies in the Bible.  Probably due to the hack job the Council of Nicaea did on it in 325AD.

These are one of my favorites:

Then God said, “Let *us* make mankind in our image, in our likeness 

Us?  Who was God talking to?  The other gods?  His wife?  

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of *us*, to know good and evil

Again with "us".  What was God afraid of that man would eat from the Tree of Life?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 26, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Isn't it true our Galaxy will eventually cross over another and no stars will touch? I saw something about this on the cosmos


That is the standard narrative. It is better to say that actual collisions are very rare. The centers of galaxies are not really stars at all, the forces rip them to shreds.  The forces are too strong and it is generally accepted the very center is a black hole.

_Stars will be thrown out of the galaxy, others will be destroyed as they crash into the merging supermassive black holes. And the delicate spiral structure of both galaxies will be destroyed as they become a single, giant, elliptical galaxy. But as cataclysmic as this sounds, this sort of process is actually a natural part of galactic evolution._

What does happen is that both galaxies are almost destroyed, in that they don't look the same afterwards. Both galaxies are extremely warped.

_In a galaxy collision, large galaxies absorb smaller galaxies entirely, tearing them apart and incorporating their stars. But when the galaxies are similar in size – like the Milky Way and Andromeda – the close encounter destroys the spiral structure entirely. The two groups of stars eventually become a giant elliptical galaxy with no discernible spiral structure._

Read more at: What happens when galaxies collide?


----------



## MarkDuffy (Jul 26, 2017)

Galaxy collision images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope • r/space


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 27, 2017)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



It never happened. It is fiction my friend!


----------



## SixFoot (Jul 27, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Noah's family were the only survivors in his region. His was not the only surviving family on the entire planet.


----------



## SixFoot (Jul 27, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't talk about all the other planets with life on them because it wasn't pertinent to the story.
> ...



Cool story.

The moon is still up there, even when you can't see it.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 27, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> Noah's family were the only survivors in his region. His was not the only surviving family on the entire planet.


So why didn't his Creator tell him to move? Why was it necessary to save 2-7 of EVERYTHING? Your ignorance is astounding. And aliens are still not out there.


----------



## SixFoot (Jul 27, 2017)

Death Angel said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Noah's family were the only survivors in his region. His was not the only surviving family on the entire planet.
> ...




And your own ugly character is typical of someone too weak and narcissistic to understand who or what they're even insulting. I've killed terrorists with better attitudes than yours. lol 

Anyway, perhaps you should research the Younger Dryas, and the accompanying comet that nearly wiped out all of mankind in flood and fire 13,000 years ago. Every ancient civilization on Earth talks about it.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 27, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...


....or the story is more apocryphal than fact as are most of the Genesis stories passed around the campfires for thousands of years before Moses wrote them down.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 27, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> ....
> Younger Dryas, and the accompanying comet that nearly wiped out all of mankind in flood and fire 13,000 years ago. Every ancient civilization on Earth talks about it.


Thanks for the info.   Although the Younger Dryas is fact, the cause is still under investigation.   A comet or meteor would make sense, but, especially with the latter, a crater would be evident. As the link below points out, an impact event has evidence, but remains to be proved. 

Younger Dryas - Wikipedia
_The prevailing theory is that the Younger Dryas was caused by significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor", which circulates warm tropical waters northward, in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassizand deglaciation in North America. Geological evidence for such an event is so far lacking.....A hypothesized Younger Dryas impact event, presumed to have occurred in North America about 12,900 calendar years ago, has been proposed as the mechanism that initiated the Younger Dryas cooling....
_


----------



## SixFoot (Jul 27, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Still just a theory, absolutely (as with anything else), but I like the evidence presented, along with all the anecdotal writings of the most ancient writers by way of Gobekli Tepe.

Younger Dryas impact hypothesis - Wikipedia

The evidence claimed for an impact event includes charred carbon-rich layers of soil that have been found at some 50 Clovis sites across the continent. The proponents report that layers contain unusual materials (nanodiamonds, metallic microspherules, carbon spherules, magnetic spherules, iridium, platinum, charcoal, soot and fullerenes enriched in helium-3) that they interpret as evidence of an impact event, at the very bottom of black mats of organic material that they say marks the beginning of the Younger Dryas,[9][10] and is claimed cannot be explained by volcanic, anthropogenic, and other natural processes.[3]

Recent research has been reported that at Lake Cuitzeo, in the central Mexican state of Guanajuato, evidence supporting a modified version of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis—involving a much smaller, non-cometary impactor—was found in lake bed cores dating to 12,900 BP. The reported evidence included nanodiamonds (including the hexagonal form called lonsdaleite), carbon spherules, and magnetic spherules. Multiple hypotheses were examined to account for these observations, though none were believed to be terrestrial. Lonsdaleite occurs naturally in asteroids and cosmic dust and as a result of extraterrestrial impacts on Earth. The analysis of the study has not been confirmed or repeated by other researchers.[11] Lonsdaleite has also been made artificially in laboratories.[12][13]

A 100-fold spike in the concentration of platinum has also been found in Greenland ice cores, dated to 12,890 BP with 5-year accuracy. This is interpreted as evidence against the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis by the study’s authors, but cited as evidence for the hypothesis by its proponents.[14][15]


Ancient stone carvings confirm how comet struck Earth in 10,950BC, sparking the rise of civilisations

Ancient stone carvings confirm that a comet struck the Earth around 11,000BC, a devastating event which wiped out woolly mammoths and sparked the rise of civilisations.

Experts at the University of Edinburgh analysed mysterious symbols carved onto stone pillars at Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey, to find out if they could be linked to constellations.

The markings suggest that a swarm of comet fragments hit Earth at the exact same time that a mini-ice age struck, changing the entire course of human history.


----------



## SixFoot (Jul 27, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Divine.Wind said:
> ...



Everything about the Bible changes when one looks at it metaphorically - in a good way.

Just my outlook on it.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 27, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> Divine.Wind said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...


A good idea given how many hands have been involved in writing and editing it over the ages.   The Bible, like a lot of ancient texts, has a lot of wisdom, but it's not perfect, IMO.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jul 27, 2017)

ScienceRocks said:


> Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?



   I've been resisting posting to this thread but since it's hung around further than it should have I might as well chime in......

    I hate to disappoint ya Matthew but the odds of you being abducted and analy probed are slim and none,and they'd most likely knock you out so you wouldnt remember a single thrust.


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 27, 2017)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> > Are aliens really going to have to land on this planet right in front of us all before we take space travel seriously?
> ...


But he can still hope, amirite?


----------



## Divine Wind (Jul 28, 2017)

SixFoot said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...


"God is still up there, even when you can't see him".  

No life has been found on the Moon or elsewhere.  Building blocks?  Yes.  Life?  No.  Death Angel is correct, "_It's all just speculation_" at this point.


----------



## SixFoot (Jul 28, 2017)

Divine.Wind said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...



She should've stuck with the non-shithead method then. She don't need your help.


----------

