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

[westwall]

No, it is not. It is a theory, and that is all it is.

False. Evolution is a fact. We can observe it and all the mechanisms of it. You couldn't stop it if you tried. The attempt to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor is a scientific theory. You are just going to have to come to terms with this.

I suggest you take a science class sometime. Your understanding is very inadequate.

 

[westwall]

And we may be able to hear it's echo, but we can't see it

When you hear an echo, you are hearing the original sound. When you look at a reflection, you are observing light reflected off of or emitted from the object seen in the mirror, even though it is reflected by a mirror.

The 'big bang' merely refers to the period of quick expansion in the early universe. We know what this looks like...because we took a picture of it.

We don't know that. We suspect, but we don't know. There is no picture of it. You have no clue what you're babbling about.

We have mathematical constructs that take us to within about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. Before that no math explains what went on.

There is ZERO physical evidence. There is a background noise that comes from all points of the Universe that we suspect is the echo of the Bang, but that's all.

 

[westwall]

Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.

No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.

Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.

Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.

No, it is not. It is a theory, and that is all it is. It has evidentiary support, but it is far from being a fact.

That is somewhat misleading though. In common parlance it is basically a fact. In science, there really are no facts, just theories. Gravity is a theory. The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.

A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data. Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.

Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory... period.

 

[progressive hunter]

but evolution assumes magic when it claims all life came from a rock and 2 fully formed humans walked out of the soup ready to reproduce

Evolution says no such thing whatsoever. It is not part of evolutionary theory.

This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.

you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup

what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life

Abiogenesis is NOT evolutionary theory nor does it have anything to do with evolutionary theory. Evolution ONLY covers what happens AFTER DNA becomes a reality and may possibly work with RNA. Before that point is not in the realm of evolution.

got a link??

Abiogenesis - RationalWiki
"Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes that take place once life has started."

Definition of evolution | Dictionary.com
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Evolution REQUIRES replication otherwise the core of the theory, natural selection, cannot take place. It is, by definition, silent on how the original replicator came into existence. That is abiogenesis and that is NOT a scientific theory. Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis. It describes a process that may have happened BUT it lacks the proof to make it a theory.

so they broke it up into two different sections ,,most likely so they can say the other guy has the answers,,

and we are back to that "may have happened" and isnt even a theory,,sounds like they just guessed or made it up, which is my whole point

 

[FA_Q2]

Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.

No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.

Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.

Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.

No, it is not. It is a theory, and that is all it is. It has evidentiary support, but it is far from being a fact.

That is somewhat misleading though. In common parlance it is basically a fact. In science, there really are no facts, just theories. Gravity is a theory. The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.

A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data. Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.

Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory... period.

And?

Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.

 

[justoffal]

This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure. A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.

So, this number again, 1000000000000000000000 planets! According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge. How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy

Putting the exact estimation aside. We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, that there aren't many far more advanced than us.

Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens. Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other. Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.

What would be the end result? Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)? It really is a daunting concept. We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation. It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.

It's nothing to worry about. All we see when we look at the night sky is ultra ancient history. 99% of the starlight you detect left it's place of origin before earth was even a planet. It's highly probable that most of it isn't even there anymore. It doesn't matter whether or not we are alone we are effectively alone.

Jo

 

[FA_Q2]

Evolution says no such thing whatsoever. It is not part of evolutionary theory.

This is one of the problems when discussing evolution, so few seem to even know what it means.

you clearly have no complete idea of what evolution teachs,,,the primordial soup is what evo teach's as the origins of life which is basically rock soup

what is it you think is the origins of life as per human evolution or any life

Abiogenesis is NOT evolutionary theory nor does it have anything to do with evolutionary theory. Evolution ONLY covers what happens AFTER DNA becomes a reality and may possibly work with RNA. Before that point is not in the realm of evolution.

got a link??

Abiogenesis - RationalWiki
"Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes that take place once life has started."

Definition of evolution | Dictionary.com
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Evolution REQUIRES replication otherwise the core of the theory, natural selection, cannot take place. It is, by definition, silent on how the original replicator came into existence. That is abiogenesis and that is NOT a scientific theory. Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis. It describes a process that may have happened BUT it lacks the proof to make it a theory.

so they broke it up into two different sections ,,most likely so they can say the other guy has the answers,,

No, they did not 'break it up.' Evolution HAS NEVER described abiogenesis. What you are doing is trying to combine them.

and we are back to that "may have happened" and isnt even a theory,,sounds like they just guessed or made it up, which is my whole point

Yes, abiogenesis is an informed guess. You know, hypothesis.

 

[westwall]

Because evolution is not a "fact" either. It too is a theory.

No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.

Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.

Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.

No, it is not. It is a theory, and that is all it is. It has evidentiary support, but it is far from being a fact.

That is somewhat misleading though. In common parlance it is basically a fact. In science, there really are no facts, just theories. Gravity is a theory. The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.

A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data. Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.

Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory... period.

And?

Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.

The problem is that non scientists use terms incorrectly. They also make assertions with far too much certainty. That leads to problems such as confirmation bias etc.

My purpose in this thread is to act as a referee. To try and contain the assertions to their proper level and rein in the hyperbole.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, evolution is a fact, as much as anything can be a fact. The theory of evolution, which attempts to explain how it produced the diversity of species from a common ancestor, is a scientific theory.

Similarly, star formation is a fact. The theory of star formation attempts to explain it.

Same for abiogenesis. Same for global warming. Same for gravity.

No, it is not. It is a theory, and that is all it is. It has evidentiary support, but it is far from being a fact.

That is somewhat misleading though. In common parlance it is basically a fact. In science, there really are no facts, just theories. Gravity is a theory. The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.

A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data. Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.

Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory... period.

And?

Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.

The problem is that non scientists use terms incorrectly. They also make assertions with far too much certainty. That leads to problems such as confirmation bias etc.

My purpose in this thread is to act as a referee. To try and contain the assertions to their proper level and rein in the hyperbole.

whats a non scientist???

wouldnt you agree that a scientist is someone that observes and studies in a specific area,,,

 

[westwall]

No, it is not. It is a theory, and that is all it is. It has evidentiary support, but it is far from being a fact.

That is somewhat misleading though. In common parlance it is basically a fact. In science, there really are no facts, just theories. Gravity is a theory. The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.

A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data. Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.

Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory... period.

And?

Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.

The problem is that non scientists use terms incorrectly. They also make assertions with far too much certainty. That leads to problems such as confirmation bias etc.

My purpose in this thread is to act as a referee. To try and contain the assertions to their proper level and rein in the hyperbole.

whats a non scientist???

wouldnt you agree that a scientist is someone that observes and studies in a specific area,,,

A scientist looks at the world differently than a non scientist. However, there are dilettantes who bridge that gap and do significant work.

They may not have a degree in science, but their minds work the same way.

As a geologist I use physics, chemistry and
biochem in my work. Any scientific paper is very readable to me.

 

[sealybobo]

there is zero proof there are any other planets anywhere outside oudon'r system,,
all we can see is pin points of light

Incorrect, you can measure the wobble of stars the exoplanets orbit.

they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure

If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?

Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.

Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age. The universe is about 13 billion years old.

What? Everything in our solar system came from other stars that went super nova. When our sun was born the earth wasn’t here yet.

 

[fncceo]

Everything in the universe is exactly the same age

Demonstrably not true ...

 

[sealybobo]

they are assuming those are planets, and they might be but we dont know for sure

If this is true then why not believe every point of light has people as smart as us circling them?

Well, it took nearly 4.5 billion years for our light bulb of sentience to wink on. That's about half the life of our star.

Hmmm, no, the Earth and the Sun are the same age. The universe is about 13 billion years old.

The Sun predates the Earth by at least a million years.

Everything in the universe is exactly the same age as matter can not be created thus it always was

So everything on earth and every other planet moon asteroids and comets are older than our star because we all came from stars that went super nova long before our sun was born.

Imagine the amount of time all that star stuff would have taken to get to us too.

 

[sealybobo]

You have everything backwards. If humans move to Mars they will evolve to Mars and then the earth will be strange

Wake up we can go anywhere and be anything

You can't live on Mars or too long because they have no molten core and therefore no magnetic field and therefore no protection from solar radiation.

If we could plant life on mars we would. Not humans but dna or simple single cell organisms

Or if we could somehow create an ozone and plant oxygen or protein or fungus or anything that might take hold we would for sure.

There will be life on Mars, but it will take experimentation. Life does not need the conditions on Earth, the purpose for adaptation is for life to thrive in various places, as it does on Earth from 1000 degree sulfur based hydrothermal vents to cold mountaintops

If there is water. Water seems to be the one necessary ingredient.

I think there is water in mars.

 

[progressive hunter]

That is somewhat misleading though. In common parlance it is basically a fact. In science, there really are no facts, just theories. Gravity is a theory. The way most people think of it - 2 bodies attracting each other is even incorrect.

A theory in science is something that is VERY strongly supported by measurements and data. Saying a theory is not a fact really has no meaning.

Facts are elements of evidence that support a theory... period.

And?

Does not change the common parlance and use of the scientific term theory.

The problem is that non scientists use terms incorrectly. They also make assertions with far too much certainty. That leads to problems such as confirmation bias etc.

My purpose in this thread is to act as a referee. To try and contain the assertions to their proper level and rein in the hyperbole.

whats a non scientist???

wouldnt you agree that a scientist is someone that observes and studies in a specific area,,,

A scientist looks at the world differently than a non scientist. However, there are dilettantes who bridge that gap and do significant work.

They may not have a degree in science, but their minds work the same way.

As a geologist I use physics, chemistry and
biochem in my work. Any scientific paper is very readable to me.

so not all people can be a scientist??

 

[fncceo]

And that too is inaccurate, our level of sentience is less than two million years old.

Yes, I know, which makes what i said accurate. It took almost half the life of the Sun for sentience to appear on one of its planets. I dont think any of us are actually disagreeing, here.

In fact, for 99.95% of the lifetime of our sun ... there was no sentient life on our planet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Most facts support the theory of evolution. However, some facts don't

Nonsense. There is no data that contradicts the theory of evolution as the origin of species.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In fact, for 99.95% of the lifetime of our sun .

Not for its entire lifetime. You mean, for its lifetime so far.

 

[Weatherman2020]

This, according to some estimate, give or take quite a few zeroes I'm sure. A deeper philosophical question which goes beyond theology, though it certainly entangles it.

So, this number again, 1000000000000000000000 planets! According to The Institute of Astronomy at University of Cambridge. How many solar systems are there? | Institute of Astronomy

Putting the exact estimation aside. We would have to take a massive leap of faith to think that not only is there NOT other life in the universe, but, also of such existences, that there aren't many far more advanced than us.

Imagine a planet the size of Jupiter, 100's of billions of citizens. Imagine them not having our reptilian instincts of rage and violence, or developing weapons of war to be used against each other. Consider if they had the average brain power 250x that of our smartest humans, and existed for much longer, maybe lived on average 10000 years.

What would be the end result? Is there any religion that makes any consideration for this possibility (outside, I think Scientology)? It really is a daunting concept. We could be the most advanced by far, we might be Gods great creation. It would hardly seem we could be alone though based on the odds and even plain randomness.

If you believe dust will write classical music given enough time, you’d have to believe all of them have life.

 

[fncceo]

A scientist looks at the world differently than a non scientist

Very differently ...