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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

, I should've said Frances Collins and BioLogos. They are theistic evolutionists. Same with William Lane Craig.

So what? Any child can point at anything and say, "God did it!".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No aliens appears to be the fact.

Damn that is so stupid. No rational peraon whose mind is not addled by iron aged, religious horseshit would say something so stupid and think it was smart.

 

[the other mike]

There's no question there is human-like and other forms of life, more or less advanced than ours, on other planets, in other solar systems and in other galaxies. Anyone who can't perceive this inevitability has no imagination and I feel sorry for you.

Are we smart enough to find it is another question.
We can't even keep ourselves from the brink of doom unto ourselves, much less
figure out how to travel through space.

 

[RWS]

Seriously, the Fermi paradox is null and void, if anyone thinks ETUFOs are possible.

They're possibly already here! That's bullpoo...

All evidence points that they may be here already.

 

[RWS]

And their stories made your ancient religions and were your ancient gods.

There were stories 2000 years before the OT... Way before. And religious people want to say it's wrong because they contradict...
Because they want to make a profit.

 

[westwall]

an intelligent species would know that gas giant planets are not good planets for life. It would also know that a solar system, in addition to gas giants, would contain smaller planets that are good candidates for life.

Only for life as we know it. Exotic lifeforms don't need to comply with our living conditions.

 

[FA_Q2]

We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.

We are right about no aliens. There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't. First and foremost is God did not create aliens. Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago. It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.

We should have found alien life many years ago? Why SHOULD WE have? We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.

How do you know God didn't create aliens? You didn't prove anything. That's not proof to say God did not create aliens. How the fuck would you know that? First of all we don't even know if God exists. Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.

I love it that you said that. Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit. Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.

But that won't stop you guys. You'll just say of course God created other civilizations. The Bible is just for us here on earth. I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere. Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there. I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.

Life is rare. Just look at our solar system The only life we see is on earth. But there may have once been life on 2 other planets. We just don't know yet. So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.

You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments. You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.

There is no evidence of aliens

Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.

That is a rather silly analysis though. The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.

"If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."

Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy. This includes our 'bathtub.' That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.

It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy. On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here? That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible. Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless. Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki

Furthermore, you have just created another possible paradox with which you must grapple:

If one assumes as true that formation of life is so rare that it only formed once or a small handful of times in our universe, then that person must explain how it formed all all , given its assumed, near zero probability. All of your valid arguments for this extreme rarity will also be arguments for its utter impossibility.

You're going to find that your attempted resolution of this paradox will accidentally turn into a full blown argument for the formation of life being quite frequent in our universe.

Not really.

We have proof that life formed once. That does not need to be proven. We know for certain that life formed one time in the universe. We have no idea if it formed more than once. The fact that we have no idea at all how it formed here means that we cannot make an accurate conjecture as to how probable the event is.

 

[FA_Q2]

Life didn't start at the time of the big bang. We haven't had intelligent life on this planet until 100,000 years ago. That's not nearly enough time for life to spread throughout the entire universe, or even throughout the entire galaxy.

No one has said life started with the big bang. No one has explained how space time started. The big bang hasn't explained how light or any stars, planets, gases, Higgs field, Higgs boson, Planck's constant, etc. was formed. It's really a stupid hypothesis, but that's what atheists and their scientists believe were packed into a quantum particle. They can't even explain waves and particles work in quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics needs space time.

Thus, life hasn't started on Earth or anywhere else according to QM and big bang.

FA_Q2 said it did:

"If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."

Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy.

The fact that science can't explain something doesn't mean you get to assume magic caused it.

That does not say that life formed at the big bang. I said that we are working with a 13 billion year timeline. To assume that life did not form outside of 50 million years of our own is a massive assumption given the length of time that we are working with. Given that massive timeline, it is far more likely that there are civilizations much older than ours even if intelligent life is extremely rare. The Fermi paradox points out that even limiting ourselves to sub light travel, those civilizations should be in evidence pretty much everywhere. That it has not brings up some problems when considering interstellar travel ourselves.

 

[sealybobo]

We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.

We are right about no aliens. There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't. First and foremost is God did not create aliens. Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago. It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.

We should have found alien life many years ago? Why SHOULD WE have? We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.

How do you know God didn't create aliens? You didn't prove anything. That's not proof to say God did not create aliens. How the fuck would you know that? First of all we don't even know if God exists. Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.

I love it that you said that. Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit. Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.

But that won't stop you guys. You'll just say of course God created other civilizations. The Bible is just for us here on earth. I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere. Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there. I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.

Life is rare. Just look at our solar system The only life we see is on earth. But there may have once been life on 2 other planets. We just don't know yet. So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.

You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments. You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.

There is no evidence of aliens

Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.

That is a rather silly analysis though. The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.

"If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."

Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy. This includes our 'bathtub.' That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.

It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy. On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here? That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible. Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless. Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki

Furthermore, you have just created another possible paradox with which you must grapple:

If one assumes as true that formation of life is so rare that it only formed once or a small handful of times in our universe, then that person must explain how it formed all all , given its assumed, near zero probability. All of your valid arguments for this extreme rarity will also be arguments for its utter impossibility.

You're going to find that your attempted resolution of this paradox will accidentally turn into a full blown argument for the formation of life being quite frequent in our universe.

Not really.

We have proof that life formed once. That does not need to be proven. We know for certain that life formed one time in the universe. We have no idea if it formed more than once. The fact that we have no idea at all how it formed here means that we cannot make an accurate conjecture as to how probable the event is.

We know life could have come from an asteroid or comet or formed on pools of water or in water with lightening.

It doesn’t matter how because regardless that life or building blocks for life came here to this solar system when an older star than ours blew up and went super nova spreading everything inside it out into the universe.

And not just one star. The atoms in your right eye may come from a different star than your left.

So life can and will form around other stars. It might not be as advance as we are. We are truly amazing. To think the contents of a star that blew up billions of years ago turned into creatures who are starting to understand what the universe is. The natural universe created us.

 

[RWS]

We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.

We are right about no aliens. There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't. First and foremost is God did not create aliens. Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago. It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.

We should have found alien life many years ago? Why SHOULD WE have? We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.

How do you know God didn't create aliens? You didn't prove anything. That's not proof to say God did not create aliens. How the fuck would you know that? First of all we don't even know if God exists. Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.

I love it that you said that. Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit. Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.

But that won't stop you guys. You'll just say of course God created other civilizations. The Bible is just for us here on earth. I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere. Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there. I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.

Life is rare. Just look at our solar system The only life we see is on earth. But there may have once been life on 2 other planets. We just don't know yet. So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.

You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments. You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.

There is no evidence of aliens

Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.

That is a rather silly analysis though. The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.

"If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."

Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy. This includes our 'bathtub.' That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.

It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy. On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here? That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible. Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless. Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki

Furthermore, you have just created another possible paradox with which you must grapple:

If one assumes as true that formation of life is so rare that it only formed once or a small handful of times in our universe, then that person must explain how it formed all all , given its assumed, near zero probability. All of your valid arguments for this extreme rarity will also be arguments for its utter impossibility.

You're going to find that your attempted resolution of this paradox will accidentally turn into a full blown argument for the formation of life being quite frequent in our universe.

Not really.

We have proof that life formed once. That does not need to be proven. We know for certain that life formed one time in the universe. We have no idea if it formed more than once. The fact that we have no idea at all how it formed here means that we cannot make an accurate conjecture as to how probable the event is.

Actually there may be evidence of a second genisus in some crazy lake in CA. Instead of potassium in it's DNA, this organism uses cyanide, which is obviously poisonous to all other life forms on Earth. Which could mean a separate genesis. Number two, on the same planet. I haven't followed up with that.

And then there's the tardigrade!

 

[RWS]

Sorry not cyanide, arsenic... But possiblity of new gen.

NASA Life Discovery: New Bacteria Makes DNA With Arsenic

 

[RWS]

We are usually wrong? Then creationists are always wrong. At least we admit when we don't know something.

We are right about no aliens. There is no evidence of aliens and we already provided the reasons why there isn't. First and foremost is God did not create aliens. Evolutionary thinking has admitted that life is rare as we should have found evidence of alien life many years ago. It's the atheist religion that keeps many to claim aliens due to the multitude of planets.

We should have found alien life many years ago? Why SHOULD WE have? We don't have the technology and haven't looked close or hard enough yet to make that determination.

How do you know God didn't create aliens? You didn't prove anything. That's not proof to say God did not create aliens. How the fuck would you know that? First of all we don't even know if God exists. Maybe your ancient religion said he didn't create aliens, but that's not proof of anything.

I love it that you said that. Because if we find life anywhere else in the universe, that will prove your God is bullshit. Made up by your ancients goat herding relatives.

But that won't stop you guys. You'll just say of course God created other civilizations. The Bible is just for us here on earth. I've already seen other christians make this argument because they too believe there is life elsewhere. Perhaps they missed where God in the bible told them there isn't other life out there. I sure as hell missed it when I read that fiction.

Life is rare. Just look at our solar system The only life we see is on earth. But there may have once been life on 2 other planets. We just don't know yet. So we haven't even fully explored our own solar system let alone all the other billions of stars.

You don't get to use what the scientists say in your arguments. You disagree with them too much to use their findings to back up any argument you have.

There is no evidence of aliens

Yep, and no evidence of any blue whales in my bathtub.

That is a rather silly analysis though. The Fermi Paradox is a very real one and brings into question the reality of other life in the universe OR the ability for that life to spread making the existence of other life meaningless.

"If interstellar travel is possible, even the "slow" kind nearly within the reach of Earth technology, then it would only take from 5 million to 50 million years to colonize the galaxy."

Considering the 13 billion year timeline we are working with, or even the younger estimate of 11 billion years, there is WAY more than enough time for any singular intelligent species to colonize the entire galaxy. This includes our 'bathtub.' That we cannot find even the barest hit of this does lead to question how prevalent life really is in the universe or its implications.

It is similar to the Dragon in my Garage analogy that Carl Sagan came up with though I am not referring to falsifiability but rather its irrelevancy. On that same token, if life exists outside our solar system and intelligence arises from that life then why has it never made its way here? That it has not leads to either the contention that life does not exist or that interstellar travel and colonization is impossible. Either of those realities makes extraterrestrial life meaningless. Other explanations, such as the earth is unique or we are the first to arise are no better than the god of the gaps argument.

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia
The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki

Furthermore, you have just created another possible paradox with which you must grapple:

If one assumes as true that formation of life is so rare that it only formed once or a small handful of times in our universe, then that person must explain how it formed all all , given its assumed, near zero probability. All of your valid arguments for this extreme rarity will also be arguments for its utter impossibility.

You're going to find that your attempted resolution of this paradox will accidentally turn into a full blown argument for the formation of life being quite frequent in our universe.

Not really.

We have proof that life formed once. That does not need to be proven. We know for certain that life formed one time in the universe. We have no idea if it formed more than once. The fact that we have no idea at all how it formed here means that we cannot make an accurate conjecture as to how probable the event is.

But religions kill others because they believe their form of genesis and subsequent beliefs are rght.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We have proof that life formed once. That does not need to be proven.

I didnt say it needs to be proven. I said it has to match up with your arguments. You really didn't address my argument. Let me re-state it:

Any argument you make for the extreme rarity of life will also be an argument that the formation of life is impossible. You will be, quite speciously I may add, attempting to reduce the probability of the formation of life to ZERO. You would then be forced to argue reasons why the formationof life is possible, which will just become, accidentally, an argument that the formation of life is frequent.

We can demonstrate this, if you like.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry not cyanide, arsenic... But possiblity of new gen.

NASA Life Discovery: New Bacteria Makes DNA With Arsenic

From your link:
"Despite their oddity, however, the bacteria are genetically too similar to ordinary life to truly be descendents of a second genesis.

"This is not Life 2.0," Davies said."

So it is not a second genesis though such a discovery would be truly massive. It would show that life is somewhat common rather than rare.

 

[FA_Q2]

We have proof that life formed once. That does not need to be proven.

I didnt say it needs to be proven. I said it has to match up with your arguments. You really didn't address my argument. Let me re-state it:

Any argument you make for the extreme rarity of life will also be an argument that the formation of life is impossible.

No, it would not because it is a fact that life is indeed possible. That is proven by our own existence. If life is on order of 1 in 1 trillion in terms of rarity then that would mean that life likely only formed one time - here. That we are not aware of how common life is means we cannot make a conjecture as to how common it is.

You will be, quite speciously I may add, attempting to reduce the probability of the formation of life to ZERO. You would then be forced to argue reasons why the formationof life is possible, which will just become, accidentally, an argument that the formation of life is frequent.

We can demonstrate this, if you like.

What you are suggesting is that life is frequent period because any argument that life is rare means that life would not have formed. IOW, your supposition has only one possible outcome, life is frequent. That is nonsensical.

It is a hard fact that we know life has formed once. We have absolutely zero evidence that life has formed more than once. Of course, it would be silly to assume that we are unique and that life has not formed elsewhere. We have already run into such silly assertions a la geocentric and heliocentric models. HOWEVER, we do have some evidence that either intelligent life has not formed elsewhere OR that interstellar colonization is not possible in the Fermi paradox. As I said earlier, that means that the formation of life elsewhere is irrelevant as it would have no meaning or impact on life here even though it would be very interesting.

That is, of course, not the ONLY possible solutions to the Fermi paradox but they are the most likely as much as I do not like those possibilities.

 

[Frannie]

We have proof that life formed once. That does not need to be proven.

I didnt say it needs to be proven. I said it has to match up with your arguments. You really didn't address my argument. Let me re-state it:

Any argument you make for the extreme rarity of life will also be an argument that the formation of life is impossible.

No, it would not because it is a fact that life is indeed possible. That is proven by our own existence. If life is on order of 1 in 1 trillion in terms of rarity then that would mean that life likely only formed one time - here. That we are not aware of how common life is means we cannot make a conjecture as to how common it is.

You will be, quite speciously I may add, attempting to reduce the probability of the formation of life to ZERO. You would then be forced to argue reasons why the formationof life is possible, which will just become, accidentally, an argument that the formation of life is frequent.

We can demonstrate this, if you like.

What you are suggesting is that life is frequent period because any argument that life is rare means that life would not have formed. IOW, your supposition has only one possible outcome, life is frequent. That is nonsensical.

It is a hard fact that we know life has formed once. We have absolutely zero evidence that life has formed more than once. Of course, it would be silly to assume that we are unique and that life has not formed elsewhere. We have already run into such silly assertions a la geocentric and heliocentric models. HOWEVER, we do have some evidence that either intelligent life has not formed elsewhere OR that interstellar colonization is not possible in the Fermi paradox. As I said earlier, that means that the formation of life elsewhere is irrelevant as it would have no meaning or impact on life here even though it would be very interesting.

That is, of course, not the ONLY possible solutions to the Fermi paradox but they are the most likely as much as I do not like those possibilities.

We do not know that life formed here...…………...Only that it is here

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, it would not because it is a fact that life is indeed possible. That is proven by our own existence.

You are not following.

Any argument you could make for the rarity of life would be an argument for reducing its probability. You would have to take these arguments to the extreme to argue the possibility that life is so rare, it likely has only formed once in our universe. To keep these arguments from being the equivalent of arguing it is impossible in the lifetime of our universe, you would have to somehow qualify them with additional arguments that the possibility of life forming in the lifetime of our universe is non-zero (as we know this for a fact).

And,in doing so, you will have completely undermined your own prior arguments and actually will have argued that life has and will likely form many times.

This trap, from which you cannot escape, is brought to you by the vastness of the universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We do not know that life formed here...…………...Only that it is here

But we do know that it formed. This process is called "abiogenesis", the name we have given to this fact.

 

[Frannie]

We do not know that life formed here...…………...Only that it is here

But we do know that it formed. This process is called "abiogenesis", the name we have given to this fact.

Nothing about the genesis of life is known as it may well have come from outside our universe where everything is so different that it can not even be imagined.

The real fact is that there are billions of habitable planets in the universe and if and when we go there we will plant it and set up the ecosystems that we need to live. And the past repeats in the future

And no one knows that life formed, atheist demand this because they do not want to seed new planets as God did here.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, it would not because it is a fact that life is indeed possible. That is proven by our own existence.

You are not following.

Any argument you could make for the rarity of life would be an argument for reducing its probability. You would have to take these arguments to the extreme to argue the possibility that life is so rare, it may have only formed once in our universe. To keep these arguments from being the equivalent of arguing it is impossible in the lifetime of our universe, you would have to somehow qualify them with additional arguments that the possibility is non zero (as we know this for a fact).

And,in doing so, you will have completely undermined your own prior arguments and actually will have argued that life has and will likely form many times.

This trap, from which you cannot escape, is brought to you by the vastness of the universe.

Yes, I follow and you are ignoring the rest of the post which directly addresses this.

Your assumption REQUIRES that life is frequent. IOW you are stating that life forming just once in the galaxy is not possible.

That assumption is based on nothing at all. Clearly life forming just one time is, indeed, a possibility.

Are you really stating that such an outcome is not possible?