The Religious Thread...... 1667 replies

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#1641 8 years ago

Mr. Pedantic;5515153It's a valid comparison. Yes, the probability that any given star system will give rise to life is smaller, but the number of applicable star systems is also greater.[/QUOTE] Exactly, hence the term "terraforming." Planets that lack life but have the potential to harbour it with modification can be "terraformed" so that humans can live there. How this can work is poorly understand as terraforming is a practice that has yet to occur and current technology cannot permit it.

Mr. Pedantic;5515153Why?[/QUOTE] Think about it. There are all these quadrillions of galaxies in our universe. But what was there before the big bang? Dark energy?

No, I do not believe the formation of our universe occurred because mother nature decided to kick in. I feel that something above science helped formed our universe.

[QUOTE=Mr. Pedantic;5515153]Even red dwarfs have a habitable zone. I know of no reason why a red dwarf could not have given rise to life.

Read my second post again. A planet WAS confirmed to be in the habitable zone, but is likely to be tidally locked because it is so close to its star. I highly doubt any sophisticated life can thrive on such a planet.

[QUOTE=Mr. Pedantic;5515153]1) Because of our current methods of extrasolar planet detection we can only find stars that are very close and/or very large. That is not to say small planets far away from the parent star do not exist, it's just that it's impossible for us to find them with our current methods. 2) There is nothing to stop life forming at the 'twilight zone'. 3) Life is extraordinary. There are ecosystems of life, even on Earth, who thrive in conditions we have trouble imagining. The fact that conditions are not conducive to us does not preclude the formation of some life in that system. 4) Why does a planet being bigger than earth preclude it having an atmosphere?

1) But think about it. We have found plenty of candidates that could be habitable, but have been overruled because of several issues. Again, Gliese 581 is an example. Heck only recently we found a terrestrial planet thousands of light years away that was almost the same size as Earth, but its star was far too hot for it to have any potential for native life. I believe the planet is known as COROT-7b Also, there is Alpha Centauri. Continuous observation has been performed on the three centauri stars (one of which is very similar to our sun), but only gas giants have been found. 2) The only basis for that argument is Europa and Titan, but both of them lack any life. Titan's greenhouse gases are insufficient and Europa is literally covered with a gigantic ice sheet. Those planets could be terraformed, but lack any potential for native life. 3) Earth has pretty much everything we need for life. There are certain areas on Earth that are completely unsuitable for habitation, but humans and most animals are capable of adapting to some degree are they not? I doubt they could adapt to the likes of Mars or any other uninhabitable world. Life probably does exist in some shape or form in our universe, but I am doubtful that it is abundant. 4) Atmospheric escape. This can be due to a failing core or weak gravitational levels.




Flash525

The Carbon Comrade

50 XP

14th July 2004

0 Uploads

15,103 Posts

0 Threads

#1642 8 years ago
Gfxer2010;5515169Think about it. There are all these quadrillions of galaxies in our universe. But what was there before the big bang? Dark energy?

Maybe the same sort of thing was there before the 'Big Bang'?

I swear I remember reading somewhere once before that the Big Bang wasn't actually a one-time event, and that it is a constantly occurring event from a location currently unbeknown to us (center of the Universe maybe?)

If, for a moment, you think about that, then the Universe as we know it could quite simply always have existed? Stars and Planets Die, Explode and are Lost with 'time'. But then more are formed in the same amount of time. There's no reason to believe in a solid beginning or end.




Granyaski VIP Member

High as a kite

107 XP

29th May 2008

0 Uploads

11,881 Posts

1 Threads

#1643 8 years ago

Gfxer2010;5515169Exactly, hence the term "terraforming." Planets that lack life but have the potential to harbour it with modification can be "terraformed" so that humans can live there. How this can work is poorly understand as terraforming is a practice that has yet to occur and current technology cannot permit it. [/quote] Indeed but if we increase how far we can travel there will be planets that can hold OUR life.

Think about it. There are all these quadrillions of galaxies in our universe. But what was there before the big bang? Dark energy?

No, I do not believe the formation of our universe occurred because mother nature decided to kick in. I feel that something above science helped formed our universe.

Look at the evidence for the big bang. Planets and stars around us are still moving, the Earth is still moving away from the centre. We have measured and confirmed this and is one of the explanations as to how we know the universe is expanding. Stop treating it like "nothing was before the big bang" as that is thinking as humans think. What if the universe has ALWAYS been here? That like Lalkazam said that something was here before it and something before thta and so on.

Read my second post again. A planet WAS confirmed to be in the habitable zone, but is likely to be tidally locked because it is so close to its star. I highly doubt any sophisticated life can thrive on such a planet.

You can doubt but theres no evidence to suggest it can't. We can make bacteria evolve quickly to survive in extreme and strange conditions. We can force them to 'respirate' sulphur dioxide, live in stronger gravity etc. Imagine that with BILLIONS of years of evolution on another world.

1) But think about it. We have found plenty of candidates that could be habitable, but have been overruled because of several issues. Again, Gliese 581 is an example. Heck only recently we found a terrestrial planet thousands of light years away that was almost the same size as Earth, but its star was far too hot for it to have any potential for native life. I believe the planet is known as COROT-7b Also, there is Alpha Centauri. Continuous observation has been performed on the three centauri stars (one of which is very similar to our sun), but only gas giants have been found.

Interesting I shall look that up.

But remember thats just ONE planet and look how we were able to locate that one thats fairly similar from our viewpoint here on Earth. Imagine if we could explore? Scan just say 3 galaxies. Think of the possibilities!

3) Earth has pretty much everything we need for life. There are certain areas on Earth that are completely unsuitable for habitation, but humans and most animals are capable of adapting to some degree are they not? I doubt they could adapt to the likes of Mars or any other uninhabitable world. Life probably does exist in some shape or form in our universe, but I am doubtful that it is abundant.

Ah, in a way I was hoping you would say this.

Who is to say life requires what Earth has? Who is to say life requires carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen etc and in Earth's quantities? As I have stated before we have made bacteria able to live in other gases.

If we went to Mars yes, we would die as we have evolved according to EARTHS CONDITIONS. What if Bacteria emerged on Mars and evolved according to its conditions? Would be a completely different form of life. Who is to say life required respiration? There could be another similar thing out there.

[QUOTE=Alakazam;5515181] If, for a moment, you think about that, then the Universe as we know it could quite simply always have existed? Stars and Planets Die, Explode and are Lost with 'time'. But then more are formed in the same amount of time. There's no reason to believe in a solid beginning or end.

An idea I am loving at the moment, the fact that who is to say there had to be a start?




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#1644 8 years ago
Exactly, hence the term "terraforming." Planets that lack life but have the potential to harbour it with modification can be "terraformed" so that humans can live there. How this can work is poorly understand as terraforming is a practice that has yet to occur and current technology cannot permit it.

What does this have to do with the formation of endogenous life in any given planet/moon?

Think about it. There are all these quadrillions of galaxies in our universe. But what was there before the big bang? Dark energy?

No, I do not believe the formation of our universe occurred because mother nature decided to kick in. I feel that something above science helped formed our universe.

One could just as easily ask what created your creator.

Read my second post again. A planet WAS confirmed to be in the habitable zone, but is likely to be tidally locked because it is so close to its star. I highly doubt any sophisticated life can thrive on such a planet.

Again, being tidally locked does not preclude the existence of endogenous life.

1) But think about it. We have found plenty of candidates that could be habitable, but have been overruled because of several issues. Again, Gliese 581 is an example. Heck only recently we found a terrestrial planet thousands of light years away that was almost the same size as Earth, but its star was far too hot for it to have any potential for native life. I believe the planet is known as COROT-7b Also, there is Alpha Centauri. Continuous observation has been performed on the three centauri stars (one of which is very similar to our sun), but only gas giants have been found. 2) The only basis for that argument is Europa and Titan, but both of them lack any life. Titan's greenhouse gases are insufficient and Europa is literally covered with a gigantic ice sheet. Those planets could be terraformed, but lack any potential for native life. 3) Earth has pretty much everything we need for life. There are certain areas on Earth that are completely unsuitable for habitation, but humans and most animals are capable of adapting to some degree are they not? I doubt they could adapt to the likes of Mars or any other uninhabitable world. Life probably does exist in some shape or form in our universe, but I am doubtful that it is abundant. 4) Atmospheric escape. This can be due to a failing core or weak gravitational levels.

1) Because of our methods of detection. It is not a bias towards large, close planets. With what we have now, we will not find Earth-like planets if we look hard or there are more of them in the universe. It is literally impossible to find any Earth-like planets with our methods of detection because they rely on circumstantial effects and because we cannot reduce the error sufficiently.

2) Neither Europa nor Titan are tidally locked, to the Sun or to Jupiter/Saturn respectively. Maybe Io would have been a better comparison? Maybe you also missed my meaning. I did not mean 'twilight zone' as in the boundary between any arbitrary habitable zone and non-habitable zones (which, as I said, are completely arbitrary; which is why we are looking for life in places like Titan and Europa). I mean the place on the planet where it's always twilight, between the perpetually light and perpetually dark areas of the planet.

Also, if a planet has a large enough atmosphere, the heat distribution could make such a zone much larger than just a ring around the planet. Looking at Venus, for example, despite the slow rotation period, there is hardly any difference between the day and night sides, because of its thick atmosphere and clouds that redistributes heat through the atmosphere very effectively. Compare this to Earth, where even in 4-5 hours of darkness the difference can be 30-40C in desertified areas of the globe.

One thing I forgot to mention, however, is the fact that Europa has a solid crust, but also has a very large ocean underneath, which is, in fact, a hope for finding endogenous life. This is also the case with Titan; there is evidence to suggest the presence of an ocean, either surface or sub-surface, on Titan. Obviously, this hope would not be present if all astrobiologists thought, as you put it, these planets 'lack any potential for native life'.

3) Two points arise from this: - Adaptation of life to a new environment is a vastly different concept to life arising on said environment. - Why do you say this?

4) This point is fail. Surely you realize that neither mass nor size are the sole determinant of whether a body has an atmosphere? Jupiter is a large planet, and it is almost completely made of atmosphere. Apart from a liquid/solid core, it is nothing else. And to be charitable, Titan (which you so kindly brought up) is smaller than Mars; yet it has a very sizeable atmosphere. I should point out the comparison between Ganymede and Titan, two very similar-sized satellites, one of which has, and one of which does not have, a very thick, impenetrable atmosphere. I would also like to point out the difference between Venus and Earth, very similar planets in size and composition, one of which is, and one of which is not, magnetically and seismically active. Both have a sizable atmosphere.

In any case, maybe you do not know, but Mars also has an atmosphere.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#1645 8 years ago
Gfxer2010;5515143But you need to understand that the requirements for life are indeed very demanding.

You need to understand that talking about how demanding the requirements for life are is meaningless unless you can establish that the universe is unable to fulfil those demands on its own. So far although you have laid out some of the problems for planets to be able to support life, you have put forward absolutely nothing that supports your argument that the universe as a whole is incapable of overcoming those problems on its own, through blind natural processes. Given sufficient opportunities over a sufficient amount of time, even the most remote possibilities that can occur, should be expected to occur. Demonstrate that this is not the case with earth-like planets. The scarcity of planets discovered that are capable of supporting complex life does not demonstrate it.




Weezer24

Clapton is God

50 XP

24th August 2006

0 Uploads

466 Posts

0 Threads

#1646 8 years ago
Totes McTurner;5514989If you're serious that is the best post I've read in this thread so far.

yes, i have faith in the jedi religion. (yes it is an official religion)




Totes

Misanthrope

92,890 XP

7th January 2011

0 Uploads

8,664 Posts

0 Threads

#1647 8 years ago
Emperor Benedictine;5515198So far although you have laid out some of the problems for planets to be able to support life, you have put forward absolutely nothing that supports your argument that the universe as a whole is incapable of overcoming those problems on its own, through blind natural processes.

That's a bit unfair, isn't it? From a scientific standpoint there IS no such evidence. That's like saying to a friend that in order to drive your car, they have to present you with 100% infallible evidence and proof that they will not get into an accident. No such evidence exists, because you simply can't "prove" something like that from a scientific standpoint. You can't dismiss someone's viewpoint on the grounds that they do not have evidence which does not exist in the first place.

I could say the same thing to you about you (or anyone) saying God doesn't exist. "You've put forth no evidence that supports your argument that God doesn't exist." Now, it is true that you could (and probably would xD) counter this with, "And you've put forth no proof of your argument that he does," but still.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,838 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,181 Posts

6 Threads

#1648 8 years ago

[INDENT]There are a race of dragons that sleep in the centre of the sun. In the darkness before worlds they breathed the universe into being. When the stars start to fade they will awaken to breathe on the embers once more.[/INDENT]

You have to start off with reasons for believing something - otherwise you can just go around picking nonsensical beliefs out of the air. There are an unlimited range of statements that can be made, and if you allow those statements to be considered true regardless of the absence of proof you can justify absolutely anything you please with it - any sin, no matter how heinous.

Most of us do not claim that god definitely does not exist - although if I were inclined to make such a claim about say the abrahamic god I would cite historical inaccuracies of the bible and its logical contradictions in that cause - but that it is irrational to believe that he does. I would of course make the further claim, though others may not, that irrational beliefs should not be held.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#1649 8 years ago
Totes McTurner;5515235That's a bit unfair, isn't it? From a scientific standpoint there IS no such evidence. That's like saying to a friend that in order to drive your car, they have to present you with 100% infallible evidence and proof that they will not get into an accident. No such evidence exists, because you simply can't "prove" something like that from a scientific standpoint. You can't dismiss someone's viewpoint on the grounds that they do not have evidence which does not exist in the first place.

From a philosophical standpoint, there isn't much that can be known with absolute certainty. But from a practical standpoint, whether you trust someone to drive your car still generally depends on your objective evaluation of their driving abilities.

The claim here is that natural processes are insufficient to create a planet capable of supporting life. One would assume this is based on a very low estimate of the probability of any planet having a proliferation of features that allow for life to exist. All I want to know is vaguely what this estimate is, because it makes no sense to say that something is "too unlikely" without having some idea of how unlikely it is.

I could say the same thing to you about you (or anyone) saying God doesn't exist. "You've put forth no evidence that supports your argument that God doesn't exist." Now, it is true that you could (and probably would xD) counter this with, "And you've put forth no proof of your argument that he does," but still.

I don't think I try to prove that a God doesn't exist, so much as to demonstrate that there is no reasoned basis for belief in God. It is for other people to decide the validity of believing in things with no reasoned basis, although I think there can be only one answer that does not involve self-deception.




SeinfeldisKindaOk

5.56 smoke Haji every day

55 XP

18th July 2008

0 Uploads

8,397 Posts

0 Threads

#1650 8 years ago

If there were life on other planets then the bible would talk about weird creatures that have wings or some such thing that inhabit some realm inaccessible to humans. But there's definitely not anything like ... that...

Waitaminute...

Angels... Demons!

Holy fuck. God is Martian.