Faith is not "without evidence" argument

Cypress said:
I grew up on Star Trek and wanted the galaxy to be pregnant with life, and especially sentient life.

I think methane is a pipe dream. Methane can only exist as a liquid solvent somewhere below 270 degrees below zero. That's to cold for any meaningful chemical kinetics that could support biochemical reactions and metabolism
Click to expand...

So you think the odds of life in our solar system are slim to none? I agree, but support taking a looksee anyway.
 
Cypress said:
]
One in a hundred planets would be an incredible amount of life. Of the thousands of exoplanets we've found, only a handful are thought to be possibly habitable.


If the universe was meant for life to be rich, abundant, ubiquitous, the universe would have been designed to be hospitable to life.

The design of the universe is lethal to life.

Ubiquitous gamma rays and high energy radiation are lethal to any form of life we can concieve of.

The thermal properties of the universe are extreme and hostile to life. Liquid water can only exist in a very narrow temperature range. The laws of chemistry are universal. Any kind of blochemistry needs a liquid solvent, and liquid water is the only conceivable solvent in which biochemical reactions can be catalyzed.
Click to expand...
Agreed. As noted in a previous conversation; a supernova within 25 and up to 50+ light years would kill all life as we know it.
 
Doc Dutch said:
So you think the odds of life in our solar system are slim to none? I agree, but support taking a looksee anyway.
Click to expand...

Supposedly there is a liquid water ocean under the ice crust at Europa, and we definitely should investigate for the possibility of life
 
America said:
It's far more likely that we'll encounter sentient artificial intelligence left behind from extinct biological beings than it is we'll encounter those beings.

For all we know, alien Von Neumann probes could be inhabiting our solar system.
Click to expand...

An excellent point and agreed.

Also agreed that extraterrestrial self-replicating probes could be passing through our system or even stopping by.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Once again, you are assuming a blind guess you have made...is an "educated blind guess."

If I tossed a coin with heads agreeing with you...and tails disagreeing...would you call the result an "educated" finding?
Click to expand...

We have enough knowledge and data about chemistry, astrophysics, planetary science, biology to be able to hazard an informed guess about whether the galaxy is pregnant and overflowing with life, or whether life is pretty rare and unusual.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed. As noted in a previous conversation; a supernova within 25 and up to 50+ light years would kill all life as we know it.
Click to expand...
indeed

Evolution requires hundreds of millions of years, minimum.
Any stellar system, particularly in the densely packed part of the inner galaxy, might really be at risk of periodically getting dosed with huge pulses of high energy gamma rays from supernovas

The universe is almost designed to be lethal to life.
 
Cypress said:
We have enough knowledge and data about chemistry, astrophysics, planetary science, biology to be able to hazard an informed guess about whether the galaxy is pregnant and overflowing with life, or whether life is pretty rare and unusual.
Click to expand...

No we do not. In fact, the knowledge needed to make a determination about whether our galaxy has abundant life...or if life in it is relatively rare...

...is about on a par with the knowledge we have to make a determination about whether no gods exists or if at least one god exists.

That will not deter people who want to make blind guesses about either issue...from making them.

I think simply acknowledging that we do not know is more than adequate.
 
Frank Apisa said:
No we do not. In fact, the knowledge needed to make a determination about whether our galaxy has abundant life...or if life in it is relatively rare...

...is about on a par with the knowledge we have to make a determination about whether no gods exists or if at least one god exists.

That will not deter people who want to make blind guesses about either issue...from making them.

I think simply acknowledging that we do not know is more than adequate.
Click to expand...

You are free to believe we are grasping in the dark and cannot even hazard an informed guess.

I believe we know enough about chemistry, astronomy, and biology to hazard some preliminary inferences.
 
ZenMode said:
Yes? No. Even before you start, you know that certain numbers are basically impossible when you have two candidates. Do you think Biden or Trump would ever have 0-25% of the polling vote or 80-100% of the polling vote?
Click to expand...

And you are introducing bias right there.
 
Cypress said:
You are free to believe we are grasping in the dark and cannot even hazard an informed guess.

I believe we know enough about chemistry, astronomy, and biology to hazard some preliminary inferences.
Click to expand...

Frank thinks all knowledge comes from blind guesses. A rather bizarre idea.
 
Into the Night said:
And you are introducing bias right there.
Click to expand...

I'm introducing a statistical reality. When you have two candidates, there is a range of popularity/approval they are going to navigate in almost the entire time. To say that you could put up a dart board, with numbers between 0% and 100%, and get more accurate results by throwing dart than you would by actually conducting polling, no matter how flawed or biased, is just not true. Nearly 1/3 of the numbers on the dart board are going to be outside the range of the actual range of support for the candidate.
 
Cypress said:
You are free to believe we are grasping in the dark and cannot even hazard an informed guess.
Click to expand...

The guess is only as "informed" as you decide you want to consider it.

In the grand scheme of things, if someone were coming to you asserting an informed guess with as little unambiguous evidence as you are using to make your guess...and on as galactic a scale as this...you might very well laugh at it...or do what I did: Call it absurd.

I believe we know enough about chemistry, astronomy, and biology to hazard some preliminary inferences.
Click to expand...

You do. I do. Scientists do.

For the here and now.

The entire of our galaxy is a totally different ball game.

Anyway, we've discussed this thoroughly...and I doubt either of us will move off our position. If you think "life is rare in our galaxy" makes more sense than "I have no idea of whether life is rare or plentiful in our galaxy...and I have no way to determine what rare or plentiful would even be on this scale"...

...then keep it as yours.

Unless you ask me a question, you get the last word.
 
ZenMode said:
Sure. There are many issues with polling, but they're still more accurate than throwing a dart at a dart board.
Click to expand...
Accurate at WHAT? They are not accurate at gauging public opinion when they are purposefully intending to manipulate public opinion.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm introducing a statistical reality. When you have two candidates, there is a range of popularity/approval they are going to navigate in almost the entire time. To say that you could put up a dart board, with numbers between 0% and 100%, and get more accurate results by throwing dart than you would by actually conducting polling, no matter how flawed or biased, is just not true. Nearly 1/3 of the numbers on the dart board are going to be outside the range of the actual range of support for the candidate.
Click to expand...
If you conduct polling in my household, you will get a result of 100% Trump, 0% Biden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top