Faith is not "without evidence" argument

Frank Apisa said:
Not sure why you consider "life is rare" to be the "null hypothesis." "Life is rare" is as much an alternate hypothesis to "life is abundant" as "life is abundant" is to "life is rare."

We simply do not know if life is rare or abundant...and probably no scientist or could adequately describe what "rare" or "abundant" is on a scale such as "our galaxy" or "the universe.

And there is a lack of evidence that life is rare...so...???

Think about that, Cypress! We do not even know if carbon based life needing the ingredients of what is popularly known as the Goldilocks Zone...is the only kind of life. Any truly reputable scientist would probably leave the answer at, "We do not know."

That is for sure. And even if the essentials of life in Goldilocks Zones is abundant, if it takes the direction human life took in evolution, maybe life in most systems terminates itself at some point in its technological evolution.
Click to expand...

Results count. Human beings have been looking for life on other planets for a few hundred years now, most intensely since space travel began. Results? Zero. Nada. Zip. There is as much evidence God exists as there is for life elsewhere in the Universe.

That said, I think the odds of finding life elsewhere in the Universe is greater than finding God milling around out there, but, the results indicate it'd be a rare find.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Results count. Human beings have been looking for life on other planets for a few hundred years now, most intensely since space travel began. Results? Zero. Nada. Zip. There is as much evidence God exists as there is for life elsewhere in the Universe.

That said, I think the odds of finding life elsewhere in the Universe is greater than finding God milling around out there, but, the results indicate it'd be a rare find.
Click to expand...

I disagree totally with that kind of thinking. It is the kind of thinking theists use to justify their blind guesses about a GOD.

The universe may teem with life...and life may be relatively rare.

WE DO NOT KNOW.

Why is "I do not know" so damn hard for people to utter?
 
Frank Apisa said:
I disagree totally with that kind of thinking. It is the kind of thinking theists use to justify their blind guesses about a GOD.

The universe may teem with life...and life may be relatively rare.

WE DO NOT KNOW.

Why is "I do not know" so damn hard for people to utter?
Click to expand...
I disagree with the kind of thinking that keeps doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

Does life exist elsewhere in the Universe? You're right "We do not know", despite actively looking for it after 66 years since spaceflight began with Sputnik.

We've looked on Venus. We've looked on Mars. If life is abundant and teeming, then the Fermi Paradox comes into play: "Where are they?" The logical conclusion is that life isn't as abundant and teeming as you seem to hope.

Should we keep looking? Of course. The odds favor that life exists elsewhere in our galaxy. It's just not very common as proved by the negative results.
 
Doc Dutch said:
I disagree with the kind of thinking that keeps doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

Does life exist elsewhere in the Universe? You're right "We do not know", despite actively looking for it after 66 years since spaceflight began with Sputnik.

We've looked on Venus. We've looked on Mars. If life is abundant and teeming, then the Fermi Paradox comes into play: "Where are they?" The logical conclusion is that life isn't as abundant and teeming as you seem to hope.
Click to expand...

What on Earth makes you think I hope that life is abundant and teeming?

The only thing I have said about the issue is that we do not know. I will add, here, that we DO NOT have enough evidence to make a meaningful guess about whether it is rare or teeming. The fact that we have not found life on any of the other planets does not play into a guess about whether it is rare or abundant elsewhere. There may be systems with life on every planet...and our system may be an outlier.

Should we keep looking? Of course. The odds favor that life exists elsewhere in our galaxy. It's just not very common as proved by the negative results.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are making what is essentially a blind guess about whether life is common, abundant, or rare in our galaxy. We may even be an outlier galaxy...abundant with life or rare with life...while most galaxies are of the other kind.

"Life" itself may be quite different from what we here on Earth consider life to be. Life elsewhere may (simply not exists at all) or be in a form so different from what we imagine life to be, that it exceeds what our best science fiction writers have been able to speculate about.

"WE DO NOT KNOW" is more than a slogan, that can be mitigated by saying that it is much more likely to be x rather than z...because we do not have the requisite information to make even that speculation be more than a coin toss.

Why are people so reluctant to say, "We do not know"...and leave it at that rather than adding nonsense about likelihood that honestly cannot be determined? In the meantime, YES...we can continue to search and see if we can come up with something substantive that we can use to make more informed guesses.
 
Frank Apisa said:
What on Earth makes you think I hope that life is abundant and teeming?

The only thing I have said about the issue is that we do not know. I will add, here, that we DO NOT have enough evidence to make a meaningful guess about whether it is rare or teeming. The fact that we have not found life on any of the other planets does not play into a guess about whether it is rare or abundant elsewhere. There may be systems with life on every planet...and our system may be an outlier.



Once again, you are making what is essentially a blind guess about whether life is common, abundant, or rare in our galaxy. We may even be an outlier galaxy...abundant with life or rare with life...while most galaxies are of the other kind.

"Life" itself may be quite different from what we here on Earth consider life to be. Life elsewhere may (simply not exists at all) or be in a form so different from what we imagine life to be, that it exceeds what our best science fiction writers have been able to speculate about.

"WE DO NOT KNOW" is more than a slogan, that can be mitigated by saying that it is much more likely to be x rather than z...because we do not have the requisite information to make even that speculation be more than a coin toss.

Why are people so reluctant to say, "We do not know"...and leave it at that rather than adding nonsense about likelihood that honestly cannot be determined? In the meantime, YES...we can continue to search and see if we can come up with something substantive that we can use to make more informed guesses.
Click to expand...
Your reluctance to accept the negative results.

I go by the results. If the best scientists in the world have been looking for life throughout the seven decades of space travel and haven't found a single sign of life, past or present, then why would anyone conclude that life is abundant in the solar system or our galaxy? https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/search-for-life/why-we-search/
The Search For Life
The ultimate goal of NASA's Exoplanet Program is to find unmistakable signs of current life....

...NASA scientists hunting for life beyond Earth form a broad coalition: those investigating our solar system, ancient or extreme life forms on Earth, and even our Sun. Signs of life might be found on Mars, Jupiter's moon Europa or Saturn's moon Enceladus, and potential future missions are in the conceptual or planning stages. Better understanding of early Earth life, or even living "extremophiles," could inform our attempts to detect life beyond our planet. And truly knowing distant exoplanets requires knowledge of the stars they orbit; greater understanding of our Sun will help us to know other stars.
Click to expand...

Not a biologist, much less an exobiologist, but from what I've read and what's been discussed on multiple JPP threads on the issue, there are only so many combinations of elements to form life. While it's possible the planets and stars are "alive", they are operating on a such a vastly different scale that communication would take centuries to receive an answer to a message. In short, life is most likely carbon-based with a possibility of silicon-based.

Yes, we do not know if life exists elsewhere. Why is it so hard for you to accept that, despite decades of looking, there is zero evidence of life off Earth? Why is it so hard for you to accept that, except for life on Earth, there is no evidence life exists anywhere else in our solar system?
 
Doc Dutch said:
Your reluctance to accept the negative results.

I go by the results. If the best scientists in the world have been looking for life throughout the seven decades of space travel and haven't found a single sign of life, past or present, then why would anyone conclude that life is abundant in the solar system or our galaxy? https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/search-for-life/why-we-search/
The Search For Life


Not a biologist, much less an exobiologist, but from what I've read and what's been discussed on multiple JPP threads on the issue, there are only so many combinations of elements to form life. While it's possible the planets and stars are "alive", they are operating on a such a vastly different scale that communication would take centuries to receive an answer to a message. In short, life is most likely carbon-based with a possibility of silicon-based.

Yes, we do not know if life exists elsewhere. Why is it so hard for you to accept that, despite decades of looking, there is zero evidence of life off Earth? Why is it so hard for you to accept that, except for life on Earth, there is no evidence life exists anywhere else in our solar system?
Click to expand...

Sorry Doc, I thought you were more intelligent.

My bad.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not sure why you consider "life is rare" to be the "null hypothesis." "Life is rare" is as much an alternate hypothesis to "life is abundant" as "life is abundant" is to "life is rare."

We simply do not know if life is rare or abundant...and probably no scientist or could adequately describe what "rare" or "abundant" is on a scale such as "our galaxy" or "the universe."



And there is a lack of evidence that life is rare...so...???



Think about that, Cypress! We do not even know if carbon based life needing the ingredients of what is popularly known as the Goldilocks Zone...is the only kind of life. Any truly reputable scientist would probably leave the answer at, "We do not know."




That is for sure. And even if the essentials of life in Goldilocks Zones is abundant, if it takes the direction human life took in evolution, maybe life in most systems terminates itself at some point in its technological evolution.
Click to expand...
Science begins first and foremost with educated guesses and informed hypotheses.

It's a very good educated guess that life is rare in the galaxy. That is a very good informed hypothesis.


We have never found a single sign of life anywhere else in our solar system.

The vast majority of exoplanets we discovered are almost certainly inhospitable for life because of temperature, chemistry, orbit.

SETI has never detected tangible evidence of any artificial signal in the cosmic EM spectrum. Despite decades of trying.

Biology is going to require chemical complexity. There is no atom that comes anywhere close to forming the amount and complexity of energetically stable chemical bonds to other atoms and molecules as carbon.

Science fiction writers like to talk about silicon. Silicon does not come anywhere close to creating the numbers and complexity of bonds as carbon. If silicon based life were possible, why haven't we seen it on Earth? 4.5 billion years is plenty of time for evolution, silicon is way more abundant than carbon on our planet, and Earth is host to a vast array of thermal and chemical environments novel new forms of life could conceivably get toehold in.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
...Science fiction writers like to talk about silicon. Silicon does not come anywhere close to creating the numbers and complexity of bonds as carbon. If silicon based life were possible, why haven't we seen it on Earth? 4.5 billion years is plenty of time for evolution, silicon is way more abundant than carbon on our planet, and Earth is host to a vast array of thermal and chemical environments novel new forms of life could conceivably get toehold in.
Click to expand...

Since, as the evidence suggests, life beginning spontaneously from raw materials is very rare, I think it would be even rarer to expect that lightning would strike twice on the same planet by spontaneously generating both carbon-based lifeforms and silicon-based lifeforms.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Since, as the evidence suggests, life beginning spontaneously from raw materials is very rare, I think it would be even rarer to expect that lightning would strike twice on the same planet by spontaneously generating both carbon-based lifeforms and silicon-based lifeforms.
Click to expand...

Carbon is actually not nearly as ubiquitous on Earth as silicon. Carbon is almost a trace or minor element in Earth's geochemistry.

Silicon is something like the second or third most abundant element on Earth.

I just have to ask, if silicon based biology were possible, why didn't it evolve on Earth before, or instead, of carbon life?


I think it's because the chemistry of silicon and silicon based molecules is just not remotely in the same class as carbon compounds. Biology is going to require chemical complexity, and nothing is remotely close to carbon in chemical bonding complexity.
 
Cypress said:
Carbon is actually not nearly as ubiquitous on Earth as silicon. Carbon is almost a trace or minor element in Earth's geochemistry.

Silicon is something like the second or third most abundant element on Earth.

I just have to ask, if silicon based biology were possible, why didn't it evolve on Earth before, or instead, of carbon life?


I think it's because the chemistry of silicon and silicon based molecules is just not remotely in the same class as carbon compounds. Biology is going to require chemical complexity, and nothing is remotely close to carbon in chemical bonding complexity.
Click to expand...

Maybe when we figure out why dead materials come alive, we'll have the answer.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Maybe when we figure out why dead materials come alive, we'll have the answer.
Click to expand...

We have to assume the laws of chemistry are universal. Silicon, iron, boron just do not have anywhere near the complexity and flexibility as carbon in making millions of types of molecules and chemical bonds. If we make any assumptions about biology, a great assumption is that it requires chemical complexity.


It's fine to have dreams of uranium based life, but we also have to be realistic about the chemical principles alien life is going to leverage.
 
Cypress said:
We have to assume the laws of chemistry are universal. Silicon, iron, boron just do not have anywhere near the complexity and flexibility as carbon in making millions of types of molecules and chemical bonds. If we make any assumptions about biology, a great assumption is that it requires chemical complexity.


It's fine to have dreams of uranium based life, but we also have to be realistic about the chemical principles alien life is going to leverage.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Nonetheless, not being an exobiologist, I can't categorically say silicon life could never exist. Steel swords are superior to bronze swords, but a bronze sword is better than a wooden stick. Go figure. LOL
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed. Nonetheless, not being an exobiologist, I can't categorically say silicon life could never exist. Steel swords are superior to bronze swords, but a bronze sword is better than a wooden stick. Go figure. LOL
Click to expand...

Since Si based life never evolved on Earth, and because we can't send probes to exoplanets, Si-based life is a question we will never be able to answer. We can only investigate biosignatures in exoplanet atmospheres which conform to biological processes we are familiar with.

So really, the search for extraterrestrial life just comes down to carbon based life. Anything else will be sheer, unsupported speculation and fancy guesswork.

Unless we find a flying saucer with bodies of silicon based aliens : )
 
Cypress said:
Since Si based life never evolved on Earth, and because we can't send probes to exoplanets, Si-based life is a question we will never be able to answer.

We can only investigate biosignatures in exoplanet atmospheres which conform to biological processes we are familiar with.

So really, the search for extraterrestrial life just comes down to carbon based life. Anything else will be sheer, unsupported speculation and fancy guesswork.

Unless we find a flying saucer with bodies of silicon based aliens : )
Click to expand...
Unless they show up in their Rock-et ships. LOL

I have no idea what signature silicon lifeforms would leave. Probably not oxygen and H2O.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top