PDA

View Full Version : If evolution was real



CtotheT
10-28-2008, 08:01 PM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.

Apeus
10-28-2008, 08:02 PM
Books. Read them.

user89489489438943
10-28-2008, 08:06 PM
Red, I know why you're there.

...

OatsandSteak
10-28-2008, 08:06 PM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.

Oh knows. Go to Mars!

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 08:07 PM
jiminy crickets...

Duckenheimer
10-28-2008, 08:07 PM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.

a) Most scientists figure that they almost certainly have. We haven't left the solar system yet...

b) Yes, given the right preconditions. No, you almost certainly wouldn't see anything between chimps and humans. If we saw cavemen on another planet that would actually not fit in with current evolutionary theory and huge revisions would have to occur.

If you mean shouldn't we see them on earth... well... no... Most species that have ever walked the planet are dead. There are plenty of transitional fossils though.

c) Pretty sure New York wasn't.

d) Learn the very basics at least of what you're talking about before you try and prove things to people... But there's nothing wrong with asking questions and learning.

the_guvna
10-28-2008, 08:12 PM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.

scientists believe that there IS most likely life on other planets, the only reason that earth is the only planet in the solar system with life is because it is the only planet that has an appropriate temperature, composition, oxygen concentration...etc that is needed to sustain life. We don't have the technology to see planets outside our solar system but scientists 99% believe that if we could, we would find life there. Seriously, read a book before you make assumptions like you have.

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 08:16 PM
honestly, i just cant wait till we find life outside the solar system

it's like an enormous "stfu"

SilverSpork
10-28-2008, 08:16 PM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.

The answer lies in a gallon of gasoline with your face over it. Just kidding.

But are you ****ing serious brah?

And 99% of past species on this planet have gone extinct.

Grinners
10-28-2008, 08:17 PM
scientists 99% believe that if we could, we would find life there.

That is definately not true.

There is a significant proportion of scientists who believe that the chance of life is so small that even with the enormous size of the universe there may not be life on other planets.

user89489489438943
10-28-2008, 08:17 PM
I'm pretty sure there is life out there.

The universe is just too big.

SlammaJamma
10-28-2008, 08:18 PM
http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpghttp://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpghttp://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpghttp://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpghttp://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpghttp://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

Drizzt250
10-28-2008, 08:18 PM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.
srsly? your 18? are you mentally retarded? I cant help but think you really are. How can ppl be so stupid... its appalling.

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 08:18 PM
That is definately not true.

There is a huge proportion of scientists who believe that the chance of life is so small that even with the enormous size of the universe there may not be life on other planets.

i doubt this

i recall many satellites are looking for planets with water because they hold possibilities of life

markymark69
10-28-2008, 08:18 PM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.

So I suppose MRSA is just a myth?

Grinners
10-28-2008, 08:20 PM
I'm pretty sure there is life out there.

The universe is just too big.

But how can you make this statement without reference to the chance of life occuring...?

It requires far more than simply the right enviroment.

SilverSpork
10-28-2008, 08:20 PM
That is definately not true.

There is a huge proportion of scientists who believe that the chance of life is so small that even with the enormous size of the universe there may not be life on other planets.

Could you show me these 'scientists', because any real scientist worth his weight realizes the opposite. It's actually improbable that some sort of life, even microbial, or prokaryotic life DOESN'T exists SOMEWHERE in the universe. ****, there are barophiles that live in layers of granite 3 kilometers under our own planet! We keep finding organisms that thrive in places we would never even suspect.

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 08:21 PM
But how can you make this statement without reference to the chance of life occuring...?

It requires far more than simply the right enviroment.

uhhh...how does it require anything more than the right environment?

Grinners
10-28-2008, 08:22 PM
i doubt this

i recall many satellites are looking for planets with water because they hold possibilities of life

Please elaborate, i don't understand your point:


1) Many satallites are looking for life on other planets.

2) There may be life on other planets.

Therefore there is life.


???

SilverSpork
10-28-2008, 08:23 PM
uhhh...how does it require anything more than the right environment?

Environment plus time.

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 08:25 PM
Please elaborate, i don't understand your point:




???

you said the majority of scientists do not believe in life on other planets

i'm showing you that their actions speak to the contrary


Environment plus time.

cheater ;)

Polamaluisraw43
10-28-2008, 08:25 PM
read The Evolution Explosion and then get back with me

fballer12
10-28-2008, 08:25 PM
theres probably atleast 100's of millions of different planets with life out there

I doutbt any non christian scientists believe that there is only a small probability of other planets have life

Grinners
10-28-2008, 08:26 PM
uhhh...how does it require anything more than the right environment?

I am sure there are millions of planets in the universe which would be capable of sustaining life, yet contain no life, would you agree?

the_guvna
10-28-2008, 08:26 PM
That is definately not true.

There is a huge proportion of scientists who believe that the chance of life is so small that even with the enormous size of the universe there may not be life on other planets.

o'rly? and which scientists are these?

SilverSpork
10-28-2008, 08:27 PM
I am sure there are millions of planets in the universe which would be capable of sustaining life, yet contain no life, would you agree?

How did you come to this conclusion?

Grinners
10-28-2008, 08:27 PM
you said the majority of scientists do not believe in life on other planets

i'm showing you that their actions speak to the contrary




I didn't mean 'majority'.

'Huge proportion' was a bad choice of words on my behalf, i have changed it to 'significant proportion'.

Give me a second, formulating my argument.

fballer12
10-28-2008, 08:28 PM
I am sure there are millions of planets in the universe which would be capable of sustaining life, yet contain no life, would you agree?

lol and how would you know this?

SilverSpork
10-28-2008, 08:29 PM
i have changed it to 'significant proportion'.

Read what I wrote above, because I think you are full of **** ;)

stateless
10-28-2008, 08:30 PM
How did you come to this conclusion?

He's accusing others of complete guesswork, whilst engaging in complete guesswork himself :)

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 08:30 PM
I am sure there are millions of planets in the universe which would be capable of sustaining life, yet contain no life, would you agree?

how are you sure of this

we barely even know the composition of the few extrasolar planets that we do know about

Grinners
10-28-2008, 08:32 PM
The odds of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance are estimated to be as low as 1 in 10^113.


One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (10^67:1) against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). [129] Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:10^50) have a zero probability of ever happening (“and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!”). [130]

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 08:33 PM
The odds of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10^113.

and is this calculated atom by atom?

hell, do the experiment twice at once and you cut the time required in half

user89489489438943
10-28-2008, 08:34 PM
9D8AeiAamjY

Epic failure.

Watch it.

Grinners
10-28-2008, 08:36 PM
Also:


Two well known scientists (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10^40,000 that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it! [140]

How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old [141], and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th (1018) seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense! [142]

Duckenheimer
10-28-2008, 08:40 PM
The odds of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance are estimated to be as low as 1 in 10^113.

Source?

*Is this taking into account true randomness or the actual chemical interactions involved?

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 08:41 PM
Also:

neither of which were biologists

also, "evolutionists"?

Grinners
10-28-2008, 08:42 PM
neither of which were biologists

Did I say scientists or biologists?

Did you say scientists or biologists?

ptwa9
10-28-2008, 08:42 PM
I got some rocks. Gonna throw some together and you can clearly see it resembles a flying T-Rex. Tomorrow gunna dig up more rocks.

Heh. Seriously, have you seen their research (paleontologists)? It's fu*king appalling...

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 08:44 PM
Did I say scientists or biologists?

Did you say scientists or biologists?

my bad

i was under the silly impression that we would quote people who knew something about the topic at hand

also, lol christiananswers.net


It was the famous French scientist and Creationist, Pasteur, who provided the first scientific evidence that living things are not produced from non-living matter. [116] During the Middle Ages, some people thought non-living matter often gave birth to living things (spontaneous generation). Worms, insects, mice, and other creatures were thought to be created by materials in their environment.

nice interpretation of pasteur they got there

Duckenheimer
10-28-2008, 08:45 PM
Did I say scientists or biologists?

Did you say scientists or biologists?

Guys, no 1st year Philosophy arguments please... :D

Can you source that info for me please?

Grinners
10-28-2008, 08:47 PM
Source?



Fabbri Britannica Bilim Ansiklopedisi (Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopaedia), vol 2, No 22, p. 519

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 08:48 PM
Guys, no 1st year Philosophy arguments please... :D

Can you source that info for me please?

directly quoted from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

and is a quote of fred hoyle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

bp16
10-28-2008, 08:56 PM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.

Life hasn't happened on other planets because they can't sustain any form of life. If there is any life on Mars or Venus, it is likely just bacteria that can survive in extreme conditions.

You wouldn't see cavemen because chances are they co-existed with modern day humans way long ago, but did not survive for some reason, maybe we killed them? Who knows.

Grinners
10-28-2008, 08:57 PM
You wouldn't see cavemen because chances are they co-existed with modern day humans way long ago, but did not survive for some reason, maybe we killed them? Who knows.

lol wut?

Duckenheimer
10-28-2008, 08:58 PM
Fabbri Britannica Bilim Ansiklopedisi (Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopaedia), vol 2, No 22, p. 519

Um okay brings me straight to darwinismrefuted.com


directly quoted from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

and is a quote of fred hoyle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Thank you. Hoyle was great, but a little mental and very unconventional. My fave kind of person. :D

hunter1492
10-28-2008, 09:01 PM
I think there is and has been life on other planets but the time in which those life forms develop technology to detect other life forms on other planets fail to match up with other life forms during the same time of technological advancement. For example, we are in a tech time now and we are reaching out to other planets that may be dead planets (we already have done this), may have primitive life forms, or advanced life forms, extinct intelligent life forms, or the planets may not be habitable at all now but were in the past, or will be in the future. Additionally the great distances involved with communicating makes it more difficult as if we hear something it may be from the distant past or so far away we could never send a message back that would be intercepted in our lifetime or several lifetimes.

We really haven't had a lot of time to try and communicate when you consider the time of real tech advancement has only been the last few hundred years for us, just a speck of time in the Earth's history. At the rate we are going it would be amazing if we don't wipe ourselves out before we have a chance to make contact but I think we'll need more than a few hundred years to intercept and commuicate and of course we'll need to invent more tech to assist with some of the difficulties. But I think it's like lights going on and off in universes. Some will be low life forms and never develop into higher forms of life but some will become self aware and for a brief moment in time the light of knowledge is on, having a nearby light of knowledge would be highly unlikely but anything is possible with the right set of circumstances.

bp16
10-28-2008, 09:02 PM
I am sure there are millions of planets in the universe which would be capable of sustaining life, yet contain no life, would you agree?

There universe is so freaking big, and there are even solar systems/planets that seem to match our solar system/earth, theres GOT to be at least intelligible life in at least one other places... If given the right conditions, over time, I think chances are fair that life will eventually show up on that planet. It did take us how long... 4 billion years to get to this point?

bp16
10-28-2008, 09:03 PM
lol wut?

I think maybe I confused his question... thought he was talking about here on earth. Guess not

rows_b4_hos
10-28-2008, 09:11 PM
Life hasn't happened on other planets because they can't sustain any form of life. If there is any life on Mars or Venus, it is likely just bacteria that can survive in extreme conditions.

You wouldn't see cavemen because chances are they co-existed with modern day humans way long ago, but did not survive for some reason, maybe we killed them? Who knows.

Neanderthals where the last surviving "human like" species. There is a lot of evidence they co existed and even mingled with modern humans.

basement iron
10-28-2008, 09:11 PM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.

Whatever high school you went to has failed you.

But anyway...

How do you know that life hasn't originated on other worlds? We've hardly even explored our own system. Have you personally surveyed the 500 billion galaxies, each one with 10-500 billion stars?

Astronomers have found almost 600 planets in our galaxy alone with our limited equipment.

Grinners
10-28-2008, 09:11 PM
There universe is so freaking big, and there are even solar systems/planets that seem to match our solar system/earth, theres GOT to be at least intelligible life in at least one other places... If given the right conditions, over time, I think chances are fair that life will eventually show up on that planet. It did take us how long... 4 billion years to get to this point?

To be honest, i believe there is life on other planets.

But this is the kind of argument I am trying to argue against. It annoys me to no end.


1) The universe is really, really big.

Therefore other life must exist

It is a ridiculous argument, and makes no sense without reference to the probability of life.

A better argument goes as follows:




1) There are estimed to be X number of planets in the universe.

2) The chance of life occuring is estimated to be approximately Y.

Therefore the probability of other life existing is > 0.5

Conversely

1) There are estimed to be X number of planets in the universe.

2) The chance of life occuring is estimated to be approximately Y.

Therefore the probability of other life existing is < 0.5

(Depending upon the X and Y variables).

Everyone seems to quote how enormous the universe is, but fails to acknowledge the minutte chance of life occuring.

Malodrax
10-28-2008, 10:09 PM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.

There could be other planets.

But the current lack of evidence for any, indicates that to this date, there is no reproducibility for the already astronomically unlikely non-sentient "natural" mechanism-based origins of life and evolution.

This point places a burden on the already inplausible atheist stance.

Malodrax
10-28-2008, 10:20 PM
The odds of even a simple protein molecule forming by chance are estimated to be as low as 1 in 10^113.

intersting that you bring up protein folding since it can be used as powerful analogy AGAINST non-sentient natural mechanism-based evolution:

I like to use this as an analogy: if a protein were to randomly search through all of its potential conformations until it found the "right" one, it would take longer than the age of universe. Relating this to natural selection: we are proposing that the first cells needed to wait through overwhelmingly more frequent negative mutations until it randomly found the "right" one that allowed to better adapt to its environment. And then this process would need to be repeated in an infinite interdependent chain. In addition, unlike the protein example, many of the mutations (conformations) that were not the right one, would lead to the death/elimination of the entity itself. The probability of tying together unlikely events in a chain in order to achieve a result quickly approaches zero as the length of chain increases. So thus the probability of random/self-directed mechanisms being able to evolve the first cells to all life on earth is too low to be considerable.

Inev
10-28-2008, 10:27 PM
I am sure there are millions of planets in the universe which would be capable of sustaining life, yet contain no life, would you agree?

Its hard to even locate planets which orbit around suns outside our solar system IN our own galaxy. How do you expect to see life forms on planets outside our solar system or outside our galaxy? its not exactly like you can just whip out your binoculars and start checking out micro-organisms trillions of miles away.

Hollywood has just conditioned you to believe that life on other planets obviously means they are going to be incredible aliens with incredible knowledge floating in flying saucers flying through worm holes. This is NOT the way it works in real life.

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 10:31 PM
intersting that you bring up protein folding since it can be used as powerful analogy AGAINST non-sentient natural mechanism-based evolution:

I like to use this as an analogy: if a protein were to randomly search through all of its potential conformations until it found the "right" one, it would take longer than the age of universe. Relating this to natural selection: we are proposing that the first cells needed to wait through overwhelmingly more frequent negative mutations until it randomly found the "right" one that allowed to better adapt to its environment. And then this process would need to be repeated in an infinite interdependent chain. In addition, unlike the protein example, many of the mutations (conformations) that were not the right one, would lead to the death/elimination of the entity itself. The probability of tying together unlikely events in a chain in order to achieve a result quickly approaches zero as the length of chain increases. So thus the probability of random/self-directed mechanisms being able to evolve the first cells to all life on earth is too low to be considerable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levinthal_paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding#Energy_landscape_theory_of_protein _folding

Malodrax
10-28-2008, 10:32 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levinthal_paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding#Energy_landscape_theory_of_protein _folding

i know both of those things....

It doesn't affect my analogy if that's what your getting at.

The main point is that proteins DON'T fold randomly. If they did they wouldn't function.

Hence the analogy to evolution,

Lager1
10-28-2008, 10:36 PM
i know both of those things....

It doesn't affect my analogy if that's what your getting at.

The main point is that proteins DON'T fold randomly. If they did they wouldn't function.

Hence the analogy to evolution,

So the fact that we don't know 100% of everything about biology is evidence for your god existing?

Sorry, but no. You fail.

DaCougarMech
10-28-2008, 10:36 PM
i know both of those things....

It doesn't affect my analogy if that's what your getting at.

The main point is that proteins DON'T fold randomly. If they did they wouldn't function.

Hence the analogy to evolution,

you mean like proteins not folding themselves and actually relying on the environment to affect folding?

Reed Viper
10-28-2008, 11:36 PM
We can assume the universe is currently infinitely expanding. We can assume there is a good chance that their is billions if not hundreds of billions of planets. I'm pretty sure its safe to assume their is "life" out there. Whether or not any of them were able to evolve into some state of "higher intelligence" like to match or surpass that of a human is probably pretty rare. For another conscious being to exist out there is probably rare. Never rule it out though.

Anubis18
10-28-2008, 11:40 PM
This might be an incredibly stupid question, but why do we assume that oxygen and water are necessary for life? Is it possible that they might breathe another gas and be made mostly of another liquid?

stealth_swimmer
10-28-2008, 11:40 PM
a) Most scientists figure that they almost certainly have. We haven't left the solar system yet...

b) Yes, given the right preconditions. No, you almost certainly wouldn't see anything between chimps and humans. If we saw cavemen on another planet that would actually not fit in with current evolutionary theory and huge revisions would have to occur.

If you mean shouldn't we see them on earth... well... no... Most species that have ever walked the planet are dead. There are plenty of transitional fossils though.

c) Pretty sure New York wasn't.

d) Learn the very basics at least of what you're talking about before you try and prove things to people... But there's nothing wrong with asking questions and learning.

agreed on everything

Malodrax
10-29-2008, 09:48 AM
So the fact that we don't know 100% of everything about biology is evidence for your god existing?

Sorry, but no. You fail.

wtf?? how in the hell dud you come to that conlcusion from my post?

Malodrax
10-29-2008, 09:50 AM
you mean like proteins not folding themselves and actually relying on the environment to affect folding?

Protein folding is non-random, guided process. It is guided by natural laws and external guiding mechanisms.

If protein folding into the right conformation was a random accident, then they would not function.

Positive mutations are random accidents (if there is no God).

hank-williams
10-29-2008, 09:52 AM
honestly, i just cant wait till we find life outside the solar system

it's like an enormous "stfu"

We hear these words a lot, especially pertaining to this subject. "just cant wait till"

hank-williams
10-29-2008, 09:54 AM
I'm pretty sure there is life out there.

The universe is just too big.

Pretty sure does not cut it. Like it has been mentioned in this post already, Scientists do not believe there is life out there.So, just because you think there has to be, does not make it so.

hank-williams
10-29-2008, 09:56 AM
i doubt this

i recall many satellites are looking for planets with water because they hold possibilities of life


Again the key words are "looking for" meaning they are in the process and the sad news is, they have found none.

riptor
10-29-2008, 10:29 AM
This might be an incredibly stupid question, but why do we assume that oxygen and water are necessary for life? Is it possible that they might breathe another gas and be made mostly of another liquid?

Yes. Even here on earth there are organisms called extremeophiles who live in environments that would kill the vast majority of life on earth. Examples are bacteria that live in hot springs or the odd fish, crabs, and worms that live around undersea volcanic vents.

riptor
10-29-2008, 10:30 AM
Pretty sure does not cut it. Like it has been mentioned in this post already, Scientists do not believe there is life out there.So, just because you think there has to be, does not make it so.

Currently there is no good evidence for ET lifeforms, but the claim that the scientific community doesn't believe that life could exist anywhere but earth is false.

Skunk
10-29-2008, 10:34 AM
why havnt any creatures 'evolved' or came to life on the other planets?

shouldn't something be able to adapt and evolve (supposedly something of this nature happened on earth)
woldnt I see cavemen , or species that resembled thingsin between chimps or humans

why were all the cities built around 5000 years ago.

http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/ndschwartz/facepalm.jpg
http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/ndschwartz/facepalm.jpg
http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/ndschwartz/facepalm.jpg
http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/ndschwartz/facepalm.jpg
http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/ndschwartz/facepalm.jpg
http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/ndschwartz/facepalm.jpg














































































































http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo45/ndschwartz/Animated%20Gifs/SiskoAnimated.gif

user89489489438943
10-29-2008, 10:36 AM
Pretty sure does not cut it. Like it has been mentioned in this post already, Scientists do not believe there is life out there.So, just because you think there has to be, does not make it so.

I'm gonna say it again, this planet is not special. It happened to have the right conditions for life. Considering the size of the Universe, I'm pretty sure there are planets like ours. And if you search on the Internet you'll see for yourself that we have already found Earth-like planets.

Here you go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-450467/Found-20-light-years-away-New-Earth.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18293978/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/08/26/new.planet/

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/13_planet.shtml

Lager1
10-29-2008, 11:06 AM
This might be an incredibly stupid question, but why do we assume that oxygen and water are necessary for life? Is it possible that they might breathe another gas and be made mostly of another liquid?

This is possible.

You see, plants dont breathe oxygen. They need carbon dioxide.

As far as water being necessary...water is so great because it's the perfect medium for things to be dissolved in.

Carbon is so great because it can bond with 4 other atoms.

The next biggest element like carbon is silicon...but silicon is larger and the cellular structures derived from a silicon-based life-form might not be very flexible.

There also might be other ways of storing genetic material. We just don't know.

hank-williams
10-29-2008, 11:32 AM
I'm gonna say it again, this planet is not special. It happened to have the right conditions for life. Considering the size of the Universe, I'm pretty sure there are planets like ours. And if you search on the Internet you'll see for yourself that we have already found Earth-like planets.

Here you go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-450467/Found-20-light-years-away-New-Earth.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18293978/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/08/26/new.planet/

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/13_planet.shtml

The question remains: Have they found life on other planets? yes or no

tenthirtytwo
10-29-2008, 11:34 AM
The question remains: Have they found life on other planets? yes or no

How many planets have actually been fully explored?

Lager1
10-29-2008, 11:35 AM
How many planets have actually been fully explored?

Uhhhh, we haven't even explored OUR entire planet yet. There are THOUSANDS of species we haven't even discovered yet.

But, if you count the Earth as one...then....ONE.

hank-williams
10-29-2008, 11:37 AM
How many planets have actually been fully explored?

THe question remains: Have we found life on other planets? We dont go on what "if" or probably, just answer the question please. Ambi Evolution
has the same problems that you are stubbling around right now.

tenthirtytwo
10-29-2008, 11:39 AM
THe question remains: Have we found life on other planets?

My question to you still remains, how many planets have we fully explored? When you can give me an answer to that, I'll be glad to answer your strawman.

hank-williams
10-29-2008, 11:45 AM
My question to you still remains, how many planets have we fully explored? When you can give me an answer to that, I'll be glad to answer your strawman.


Okay, the reason this question evolved in the first place was because another poster mad the assertion that there was life on other planets, but the fact remains that we do not know that, so it is the same if I would say there is no life on other planets as we know of, correct? See, you can say how many have we explored all you would like and it does not change the answer from no to yes. Show me the proof and i will be happy to comply.

tenthirtytwo
10-29-2008, 11:47 AM
Okay, the reason this question evolved in the first place was because another poster mad the assertion that there was life on other planets, but the fact remains that we do not know that, so it is the same if I would say there is no life on other planets as we know of, correct? See, you can say how many have we explored all you would like and it does not change the answer from no to yes. Show me the proof and i will be happy to comply.

Strange, you didn't answer my question. Shall we try again?

How many planets have we fully explored?

hank-williams
10-29-2008, 11:51 AM
Strange, you didn't answer my question. Shall we try again?

How many planets have we fully explored?

Answer mine and then I will answer yours, since I was in the thread first and interacted in the question first.

tenthirtytwo
10-29-2008, 11:57 AM
Answer mine and then I will answer yours, since I was in the thread first and interacted in the question first.

How about I'll answer my question, and then I'll answer yours.

We have explored zero planets fully. If we count earth, then 1. If we count mars, then 2.

So on 2 out of a mind-blowingly large number of planets, we have not found life.

hank-williams
10-29-2008, 12:06 PM
How about I'll answer my question, and then I'll answer yours.

We have explored zero planets fully. If we count earth, then 1. If we count mars, then 2.

So on 2 out of a mind-blowingly large number of planets, we have not found life.

Thanks for answering my question as well. So let it be known this day that we have yet to find life anywhere else.

hank-williams
10-29-2008, 12:07 PM
how are you sure of this

we barely even know the composition of the few extrasolar planets that we do know about

Science does not deal with absolutes.

Lager1
10-29-2008, 12:08 PM
Thanks for answering my question as well. So let it be known this day that we have yet to find life anywhere else.

So on one out of two planets explored, one has life.

So by your logic 50% of all the planets in the universe have life. COOL.

hank-williams
10-29-2008, 12:12 PM
So on one out of two planets explored, one has life.

So by your logic 50% of all the planets in the universe have life. COOL.


Evolution is unproved and unprovable.. just saying. No, you misread what I said, are you saying you have proof that life has been found?