The big question about life on other planets: 1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

[sealybobo]

if they’re really that far away they might as well not exist for all practical purposes as far as we’re concerned.

It would also suggest that FTL space travel and stuff like ships that can travel via wormholes or hyperspace is truly just fiction.

If those vast distances could somehow be overcome, some civilization somewhere at some point would have.

The idea of there being other intelligent life, but we’re all *so* spread out across different times and across such vast space that we could never, ever possibly contact each other seems more lonely and depressing than the idea that we’re simply alone.

What if one day we can travel close to the speed of light? Right now, you are correct. They might as well not exist at all. There's nothing practical or no way we are going to benefit from life being somewhere else as of right now other than maybe it will wake a lot of people up to the fact we aren't special and this universe wasn't made for us and RELIGION IS BS. That enlightenment might be beneficial no?

Consider this. We think we are smart and we really don't know shit. We may even be destroying our planet and we won't even be here in another 100 years. Depleting the planets resources, blabla bla. Right?

Ok, so this other planet may have looked at our solar system long before we evolved and they didn't see anything on this planet. And before they could look again after we did evolve, they killed themselves off with global warming or war. So when they looked, nothing was here. And now we look, nothing is there. Get it?

And this universe is middle age right? Things are still swirling. Imagine the new worlds that haven't even formed yet.

And what will happen after the last star in our universe burns out?

 

[sealybobo]

Maybe they have. We might be waiting another billion years for their message.

And what if they are really smart but the size of tardigrades?

Tardigrades are mostly about 1 mm (0.04 inch) or less in size. They live in a variety of habitats worldwide: in damp moss, on flowering plants, in sand, in fresh water, and in the sea. In adapting to this wide range of external conditions, a large number of genera and species have evolved.

Tardigrades are nearly translucent and they average about half a millimeter (500 micrometers) in length, about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. In the right light you can actually see them with the naked eye.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let me know if you have any questions.

When did you start writing fiction?

Why are you so dishonest? As if abiogenesis was "the bridge too far."fr you.. Please. Surely you don't think that fools anyone.

 

[Unkotare]

....

We have only been smart for like a minute....

You have never been.

 

[Unkotare]

Well how come it's usually the bible thumpers who think we are alone? ...

It's not, you brainless bigot.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm the author:

Abiogenesis: A Bridge Too Far

Let me know if you have any questions.

Wow, you basically self-published a religious tract. That hardly makes you an "expert". I am also a self-published author, but I in no way use that to claim I am an "expert", unless I am actually writing things I am an expert in.

And in reading through that, it is indeed little more than a religious tract. Going on far more about religion and attacking those that do not agree than actually trying to build a case. Just taking research of others out of context and cherry picking select things to build your "case".

Atheism is poisoning science. Intellectual fascists are arbitrarily asserting scientific materialism against the evidence.

Yes, that and other statements that seem to appear at almost every page is mostly what that is about. And I did notice that you did not even open as such a paper would, or close with qualifications. Just the completely vague and meaningless "Years of experience..." Experience in what, exactly? Thinking about this as you changed the oil on your car and stood in line at the store?

Sorry if I am underwhelmed.

 

[Ringtone]

Wow, you basically self-published a religious tract. That hardly makes you an "expert". I am also a self-published author, but I in no way use that to claim I am an "expert", unless I am actually writing things I am an expert in.

And in reading through that, it is indeed little more than a religious tract. Going on far more about religion and attacking those that do not agree than actually trying to build a case. Just taking research of others out of context and cherry picking select things to build your "case".



Yes, that and other statements that seem to appear at almost every page is mostly what that is about. And I did notice that you did not even open as such a paper would, or close with qualifications. Just the completely vague and meaningless "Years of experience..." Experience in what, exactly? Thinking about this as you changed the oil on your car and stood in line at the store?

Sorry if I am underwhelmed.

Nonsense. I didn't cherry-pick anything, and I didn't take anyone's research out of context, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. That article accurately and objectively discusses the very best evidence for abiogenesis and the findings of the very best experimental research conducted by the leading lights of abiogenesis since Miller-Urey.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I didn't take anyone's research out of context

Says this, then does EXACTLY THIS in the same post:

Miller-Urey

An old ID'iot talking point, a lie told by lying liars that this has any bearing on denying abiogenesis.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Another divine declaration.

ROFL

Captain Kirk is searching for you...

 

[Likkmee]

Jupiter is a gas giant and technically has no surface on which it's citizens and live.

A terrestrial planet the size of Jupiter would have a surface gravity many hundreds of time that of Earth, making it highly unlikely to evolve any citizens.

Also, because of the time contraction caused by the extreme gravity, any citizens that do evolve will come and go in the wink of a geological eye.

Sounds like Cook county

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yea, why is he so sure?

Sure about that we will never know?

{
Although Alpha Centauri is the nearest star system to us, it still lies roughly 4.37 light-years away. That is equal to more than 25.6 trillion miles, or more than 276,000 times the distance from Earth to the sun.

Conventional rockets are nowhere near efficient enough to cross the enormous distance to Alpha Centauri within a human lifetime, as science fiction author and NASA physicist Geoffrey Landis once explained. For instance, at the space shuttle’s maximum speed of about 17,600 mph, it would have taken roughly 165,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri.}

So How Exactly Do We Get To Alpha Centauri?

How Do We Get To Alpha Centauri?

www.popsci.com

You mindless cretin.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ROFL

Captain Kirk is searching for you...

Lies make baby Jesus cry

 

[Mushroom]

That article accurately and objectively discusses the very best evidence for abiogenesis and the findings of the very best experimental research conducted by the leading lights of abiogenesis since Miller-Urey.

When almost every single page you rant and scream against scientists, atheists, or anybody that refuses to believe how great you are, it is nothing but rubbish.

That is not science, that is a religious tract. No more "science" than this one is.

 

[Ringtone]

When almost every single page you rant and scream against scientists, atheists, or anybody that refuses to believe how great you are, it is nothing but rubbish.

That is not science, that is a religious tract. No more "science" than this one is.

Liar. You didn't the paper. Why am I not surprised.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Liar. You didn't the paper. Why am I not surprised.

nobody gives a shit about your paper. Publish your research. This is a science section, not a summer retreat bible camp.

 

[Mushroom]

Liar. You didn't the paper. Why am I not surprised.

As if that would actually make a difference?

As I said, I did read it. And it is nonsense. More political and religious tract than actual science. Self-published on a site where people put up their own works and not vetted or checked at all.

But here, does this make you happy?

Years of experience have shown me that most atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks.

Oh yes, just the very opening sentence most serious scientific works open with.

It is really nothing more than a long running example of mental masturbation. Where you applaud and tell some that they got it right, then scream at anybody that you think got it wrong. Attacking multiple scientific papers with nothing more than "They got it wrong!" and "They do not know what they are doing!" if you are not just attacking them for being atheists.

I think I have flushed papers recently that were of more interest.

 

[Ringtone]

As if that would actually make a difference?

As I said, I did read it. And it is nonsense. More political and religious tract than actual science. Self-published on a site where people put up their own works and not vetted or checked at all.

But here, does this make you happy?



Oh yes, just the very opening sentence most serious scientific works open with.

It is really nothing more than a long running example of mental masturbation. Where you applaud and tell some that they got it right, then scream at anybody that you think got it wrong. Attacking multiple scientific papers with nothing more than "They got it wrong!" and "They do not know what they are doing!" if you are not just attacking them for being atheists.

I think I have flushed papers recently that were of more interest.

Dude, you best stop talkin' smack.

 

[Mushroom]

Dude, you best stop talkin' smack.

"Talking smack", when I am actually quoting your own writing.

Indeed, I'm light years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who unwittingly expose their ignorance about the sciences and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their dogma and sneer at theists.

And you accuse me of "Talking smack". That is clear as day on page 2 of your "report".

I recently posted a question on Yahoo! Answers and prefaces it with a brief summary of the findings of the Muller-Urey experiment of 1952 in the light of current science. Of course, the underlying hypothesis on which the experiment was originally based has been falsified.

Oh yes, because all serious researchers go to Yahoo! Answers to get real discussion going about research papers over 50 years old. And if it is false why you claim, why even bring it up at all? Of course, that was also on page 2. Lots of smack there from you.

For example, it doesn't appear that the author of Lord Fluffy Tail's source knows that the Earth's atmosphere was oxygen-rich much earlier than he supposes, generally more oxidizing than reducing - necessary for life, but not friendly to the formation of amino acids.

Wow, first time in something claiming to be "scientific" that used an online nickname. Unless there is a Doctor Lord Fluffy Tail OBE running around England somewhere. And interesting, the planet was "oxygen rich" even before amino acids. Of course, absolutely no explanation (once again) on how that happened. I guess, magic?

And FYI, I am still only on page 2!

Honest, I do not see how anybody could read through that coprolite. Even by the end of the second page I was shaking my head. Accusations and mud slinging at I have no idea who. Claims with absolutely nothing to say why. It is nonsense.

But please, I invite anybody else to even try and read through it, and let me know if I am accurate in this assessment.

All I can say is, perplexing.

Perplexing.

Perplexing.

And I leave, with this gem.

It's all pie-in-the-sky nonsense, of course, but as long as we're already suspending disbelief far above any reasonable altitude, we might as well go along with the tale forever: never mind the threats beyond the synthesizing medium, never mind the ubiquitous cross-reaction contaminants, never mind that water ultimately pushed peptidyl bonding backward, not forward, would disperse the precursors of proteins and condemn them to the whims of a churning and lonely isolation, and never mind most of all that the total amount of organic compounds on Earth today, relative to the overwhelming, abiotic reactions in raw nature, is less than a fraction of the lofty concentrations that would be plausible favorable to the inscrutable processes of abiogenesis.

Holy Run-On-Sentence Batman! And yes, I edited nothing, that was exactly as written. Almost 9 full lines, an almost incomprehensible mashup that just goes on and on and on almost endlessly.

And as always absolutely nothing explaining how you come to that "consensus", simply that we apparently must believe you without reason, just because you say so.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lies make baby Jesus cry

I'll make Jesus cry if he doesn't edge the west side of the lawn. I'm docking his check.

 

[Ringtone]

"Talking smack", when I am actually quoting your own writing.



And you accuse me of "Talking smack". That is clear as day on page 2 of your "report".



Oh yes, because all serious researchers go to Yahoo! Answers to get real discussion going about research papers over 50 years old. And if it is false why you claim, why even bring it up at all? Of course, that was also on page 2. Lots of smack there from you.



Wow, first time in something claiming to be "scientific" that used an online nickname. Unless there is a Doctor Lord Fluffy Tail OBE running around England somewhere. And interesting, the planet was "oxygen rich" even before amino acids. Of course, absolutely no explanation (once again) on how that happened. I guess, magic?

And FYI, I am still only on page 2!

Honest, I do not see how anybody could read through that coprolite. Even by the end of the second page I was shaking my head. Accusations and mud slinging at I have no idea who. Claims with absolutely nothing to say why. It is nonsense.

But please, I invite anybody else to even try and read through it, and let me know if I am accurate in this assessment.

All I can say is, perplexing.

Perplexing.

Perplexing.

And I leave, with this gem.



Holy Run-On-Sentence Batman! And yes, I edited nothing, that was exactly as written. Almost 9 full lines, an almost incomprehensible mashup that just goes on and on and on almost endlessly.

And as always absolutely nothing explaining how you come to that "consensus", simply that we apparently must believe you without reason, just because you say so.

Which affirms that you really didn't read it.

I summarize the naturalist's underlying metaphysical bias in contrast to what the findings of abiogenetic research actually divulge. I give a few anecdotal examples of how the true believer of popular culture and of little real firsthand knowledge typically reacts to the learned assessments of those who do not presuppose naturalism. In other words, it's the presentation of the pertinent findings sans the naturalist's underlying bias that irks you. But, then, you didn't attentively read the bulk of the paper, as you obviously confound "the thematic device of competing metaphysics" with the objectively accurate presentation of the findings.

Also, there are in fact a number of compound-complex sentences in the paper, which tells me you don't know what a run-on sentence is.

In the meantime, the bulk of the paper strictly regards the research.