Faith is not "without evidence" argument

[AProudLefty]

I'd shout it louder but you still wouldn't be able to hear me.

So you were trying to troll me. Maybe you need to go back and retake Dumb Studies because you are failing miserably, Sybil.

 

[gfm7175]

How can it be random numbers if they polled people?

RQAA. See my post #467 for the answer.

 

[AProudLefty]

RQAA. See my post #467 for the answer.

The numbers are not random if they are polled. The numbers will remain consistent over areas.

 

[Into the Night]

The null hypothesis is premised on finding no evidence.

No, it isn't. It is based on finding conflicting evidence.

Lack of evidence is sufficient to make educated preliminary guesses.

No, it is just an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean is doesn't exist.

Many reputable PhD level astronomers and astrobiologists currently believe life is rare in the galaxy, based on a range of observed factors.

Consensus is not used in science.

So I really don't think it is fair to call it absurd as an educated guess.

No, it's just an argument of ignorance fallacy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Mantra 50 "public masturbation"

Mantra 47 Bum Fuckery

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, it isn't. It is based on finding conflicting evidence.

No, it is just an argument of ignorance fallacy. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean is doesn't exist.

Consensus is not used in science.

No, it's just an argument of ignorance fallacy.

Mantra 41 Idiocracy

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

RQAA. See my post #467 for the answer.

Mantra 51 Public Acronym Abuse

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Into the Night]

Would you mind explaining for my edification why no expandiverses can open up in your universe?

First, it is not MY universe. Second, I have already answered this question.

What prevents that from happening?

I have already answered this question too.

Nothing seemed to stop the expandiverse in which we find ourselves from opening up in the universe, right?

What 'expandiverse'?

I'm confused on this point because obviously at least one expandiverse opened up and we can observe it because we are in it. You are indicating that it can't happen. How should I understand this?

I have already answered this question.

Stars only have finite usable energy to perform work over a finite time. Given sufficient time, any star dies.

I think you should look at the various things that can happen when a star 'dies'. The material can easily form a new star or even a black hole.

If the universe were infinitely old, all the stars would have infinitely long-since died and all matter in the universe would be lumped together in huge black holes. This is what gravity would produce.

No, it isn't. New stars can form out of old stars.

What am I missing?

The answers I've already given you.

 

[AProudLefty]

First, it is not MY universe. Second, I have already answered this question.

I have already answered this question too.

What 'expandiverse'?

I have already answered this question.

I think you should look at the various things that can happen when a star 'dies'. The material can easily form a new star or even a black hole.

No, it isn't. New stars can form out of old stars.

The answers I've already given you.

It's cute to watch Sybil talking to himself.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'd shout it louder but you still wouldn't be able to hear me.

Mantra 46 Horse Assery

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's cute to watch Sybil talking to himself.

Agreed. It's proof that he truly believes these are his "friends".

 

[Cypress]

There is currently no way to determine if life is rare and unique. We are finding more and more exoplanets which makes Earth like planets seem more probable.

I am saying we can make educated guesses, hypothsize, make informed speculation..

Making determinations is a decades or centuries long scientific investigation project.


Very few exoplanets we've found are suitable for life, though that might change as technology improves.

We also would have to observe definite biosignatures in exoplanets atmospheres

 

[Dutch Uncle]

First, it is not MY universe. Second, I have already answered this question.

I have already answered this question too.

What 'expandiverse'?

I have already answered this question.

I think you should look at the various things that can happen when a star 'dies'. The material can easily form a new star or even a black hole.

No, it isn't. New stars can form out of old stars.

The answers I've already given you.

Would you mind explaining for my edification why no expandiverses can open up in your universe? What prevents that from happening? Nothing seemed to stop the expandiverse in which we find ourselves from opening up in the universe, right? I'm confused on this point because obviously at least one expandiverse opened up and we can observe it because we are in it. You are indicating that it can't happen. How should I understand this?


Stars only have finite usable energy to perform work over a finite time. Given sufficient time, any star dies. If the universe were infinitely old, all the stars would have infinitely long-since died and all matter in the universe would be lumped together in huge black holes. This is what gravity would produce.

What am I missing?

This:
Mantra 50 Public Masturbation

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[AProudLefty]

I am saying we can make educated guesses, hypothsize, make informed speculation..

Making determinations is a decades or centuries long scientific investigation project.


Very few exoplanets we've found are suitable for life, though that might change as technology improves.

We also would have to observe definite biosignatures in exoplanets atmospheres

The universe is vast. It is not the same as making an educated guess on the existence of Bigfoot on Earth.

 

[Cypress]

The universe is vast. It is not the same as making an educated guess on the existence of Bigfoot on Earth.

The universe is deadly to life.

The cosmos is bathed in cosmic radiation and gamma rays lethal to any biology we can concieve of.

We tend to not think about it, sitting beneath our thin life sustaining atmosphere, and invisible magnetic field.

It probably took an almost a perfect storm of events to have a planet like Earth with the correct orbital, geophysical, and chemical parameters for biology


Mars was supposed to be habitable. But 50 years of study, and countless probes have turned up nothing.

Half a century of SETI, we have never seen any evidence of an artificial signal in the EM radio and microwave spectrum.

I am hopeful that life is out there. But I see no reason to hypothsize or expect it's going to be ubiquitous. I think we are all just culturally used to our experiences with Star Trek and Star Wars.


Just my two cents

 

[AProudLefty]

The universe is deadly to life.

The cosmos is bathed in cosmic radiation and gamma rays lethal to any biology we can concieve of.

We tend to not think about it, sitting beneath our thin life sustaining atmosphere, and invisible magnetic field.

It probably took an almost a perfect storm of events to have a planet like Earth with the correct orbital, geophysical, and chemical parameters for biology


Mars was supposed to be habitable. But 50 years of study, and countless probes have turned up nothing.

Half a century of SETI, we have never seen any evidence of an artificial signal in the EM radio and microwave spectrum.

I am hopeful that life is out there. But I see no reason to hypothsize or expect it's going to be ubiquitous. I think we are all just culturally used to our experiences with Star Trek and Star Wars.


Just my two cents

Life on Earth has sustained for billions of years.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Life on Earth has sustained for billions of years.

The $64 question being "Why only on Earth?" What little evidence we have is that life, once started, is hard to kill off. Even if the Earth had another impact event or super volcano, even a nuclear exchange, life would continue to exist....just not human life. LOL

Still, human beings have been looking for life ever since we realized we're on a planet and that the "wandering stars" were other planets. So far, nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero indication that life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. The religious say it's because God only put life on Earth. The realists think that's unlikely but have a hard time explaining Fermi's Paradox.

Current thinking, as Cypress and I have already discussed, is that life is very rare. An additional theory to explain why no other advanced species exist is that advanced species have a tendency to knock themselves back to lower levels. Something which our species has done a couple times and has come close to doing permanently.

 

[AProudLefty]

The $64 question being "Why only on Earth?" What little evidence we have is that life, once started, is hard to kill off. Even if the Earth had another impact event or super volcano, even a nuclear exchange, life would continue to exist....just not human life. LOL

Still, human beings have been looking for life ever since we realized we're on a planet and that the "wandering stars" were other planets. So far, nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero indication that life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. The religious say it's because God only put life on Earth. The realists think that's unlikely but have a hard time explaining Fermi's Paradox.

Current thinking, as Cypress and I have already discussed, is that life is very rare. An additional theory to explain why no other advanced species exist is that advanced species have a tendency to knock themselves back to lower levels. Something which our species has done a couple times and has come close to doing permanently.

It's only been around 200 years. And there's Ancient Aliens.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's only been around 200 years.

And there's Ancient Aliens.

200 year is still long enough to prove that life isn't ubiquitous. Given the odds, I'm certain it exists elsewhere. The key question is "How rare is life in the Universe?"

LOL. I used to be a huuuuge fan of the Ancient Astronauts theory and read several of von Däniken's books in HS and early college. Eventually, like my fascination with UFO sightings, I realized they didn't add up. Space is too big and the distances too vast. I'd sooner believe the "ancient astronauts" are time travellers than interstellar visitors.

 

[AProudLefty]

200 year is still long enough to prove that life isn't ubiquitous. Given the odds, I'm certain it exists elsewhere. The key question is "How rare is life in the Universe?"

LOL. I used to be a huuuuge fan of the Ancient Astronauts theory and read several of von Däniken's books in HS and early college. Eventually, like my fascination with UFO sightings, I realized they didn't add up. Space is too big and the distances too vast. I'd sooner believe the "ancient astronauts" are time travellers than interstellar visitors.

Our history is full of stories and illustrations of visitors from outer space. You gotta wonder. LOL.

The discovery of many exoplanets give credence that life is very possible out there.