Faith is not "without evidence" argument

[Ross Dolan]

Science begins first and foremost with educated guesses and informed hypotheses.

Correct.

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

It is an ABSURD hypothesis.

We cannot even define what "life being rare in the galaxy" or "life being abundant in the galaxy" are. Would one planet with life for every 100 stars be "rare" or "abundant?"

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

We have only been to three or four places anywhere in our solar system. There might be life on moons of several planets...there might be life on places near to where we have been.

WE DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS OTHER LIFE IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM...and we sure as hell do not know if life is rare or abundant elsewhere in our galaxy. We also do not know if our galaxy is representative of galaxies in general with regard to life.

Why is it so hard to simply acknowledge that we do not know if life is rare or abundant (however that is eventually defined)...and leave it at that, while searching as best as possible for other life?

Why are you and others insisting that life is rare (once again, whatever that means)....or that a blind guess that it is rare is a hypothesis...and an educated/informed hypothesis at that?

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

What makes you so sure that there are no life forms that can exist in temperatures and chemistry that are DIFFERENT from what can exist here?

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

My goodness..."decades of trying." In the context of a system existing in a universe that appears to have existed for almost 14 billion years, that is like looking for your car keys for less than one full second and determining that they are lost forever.

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.

And we have no idea of when this occurs...besides the fact that we do not know if these supposed laws exist everywhere in our galaxy. Whether they are immutable...or relatively ephemeral.

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.

I do not know the answer to that question...AND NEITHER DO YOU.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You are at least correct about Sybil. Sybil is you.

Mantra 41 Idiocracy

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

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

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yeah. Even then what does pseudoshit numbers have to do with polls?

Maybe Damo can start a new forum titled "Ask a Psycho" with Sybil, TDAK and Truth Detector as hosts to answer questions like that since I don't have a fucking clue why Sybil connects them.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

RQAA

Mantra 51 Public Acronym Abuse

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

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

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Just like any terminology in mathematics.

Mantra 41 Idiocracy

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

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

 

[Cypress]

Correct.



It is an ABSURD hypothesis.

We cannot even define what "life being rare in the galaxy" or "life being abundant in the galaxy" are. Would one planet with life for every 100 stars be "rare" or "abundant?"






We have only been to three or four places anywhere in our solar system. There might be life on moons of several planets...there might be life on places near to where we have been.

WE DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS OTHER LIFE IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM...and we sure as hell do not know if life is rare or abundant elsewhere in our galaxy. We also do not know if our galaxy is representative of galaxies in general with regard to life.

Why is it so hard to simply acknowledge that we do not know if life is rare or abundant (however that is eventually defined)...and leave it at that, while searching as best as possible for other life?

Why are you and others insisting that life is rare (once again, whatever that means)....or that a blind guess that it is rare is a hypothesis...and an educated/informed hypothesis at that?




What makes you so sure that there are no life forms that can exist in temperatures and chemistry that are DIFFERENT from what can exist here?



My goodness..."decades of trying." In the context of a system existing in a universe that appears to have existed for almost 14 billion years, that is like looking for your car keys for less than one full second and determining that they are lost forever.



And we have no idea of when this occurs...besides the fact that we do not know if these supposed laws exist everywhere in our galaxy. Whether they are immutable...or relatively ephemeral.




I do not know the answer to that question...AND NEITHER DO YOU.

I didn't say we "know" life is rare in the galaxy.

I said it's a good informed guess, or a good hypothesis that life is rare.


SETI has been around for decades, most exoplanets we've found cannot concievably host life. We had high expectations of microbial life on Mars.

The universe is deadly to life. The cosmos is bathed is cosmic radiation and gamma rays. It takes a perfect storm of events for a planet to evolve with defense mechanisms against that.


The laws of chemistry are the same everywhere in the universe. Biology is going to require complexity. No element is anywhere remotely close to the chemical complexity and flexibility as carbon. Not by a country mile. Not remotely in the same ballpark.

You can't build a 747 with just matchsticks. It is a complex machine

I would ask anyone who believes there is a realistic chance of silicon or titanium based life, why we don't see it on Earth. There is no law of nature I am aware of that states only carbon based life is allowed on Earth. This planet is 4.5 billion years old, plenty of time for the evolution of novel and exotic forms of alternative life, and this planet hasca huge range of geochemical and thermal conditions to incubate exotic alternative forms of life.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I didn't say we "know" life is rare in the galaxy.

I said it's a good informed guess, or a good hypothesis that life is rare.


SETI has been around for decades, most exoplanets we've found cannot concievably host life. We had high expectations of microbial life on Mars.

The universe is deadly to life. The cosmos is bathed is cosmic radiation and gamma rays. It takes a perfect storm of events for a planet to evolve with defense mechanisms against that.


The laws of chemistry are the same everywhere in the universe. Biology is going to require complexity. No element is anywhere remotely close to the chemical complexity and flexibility as carbon. Not by a country mile. Not remotely in the same ballpark.

You can't build a 747 with just matchsticks. It is a complex machine

I would ask anyone who believes there is a realistic chance of silicon or titanium based life, why we don't see it on Earth. There is no law of nature I am aware of that states only carbon based life is allowed on Earth. This planet is 4.5 billion years old, plenty of time for the evolution of novel and exotic forms of alternative life, and this planet hasca huge range of geochemical and thermal conditions to incubate exotic alternative forms of life.

I fail to see why Frank is wrapped around the axle on this. The evidence indicates life is rare by virtue of the fact we haven't found it anywhere in our solar system except on Earth or elsewhere in our galaxy...except on Earth. While the odds favor life would begin elsewhere simply due to the numbers involved, clearly it's not as ubiquitous as I and others had hoped in the 1960s.

Maybe primitive life will be discovered in the methane oceans of Io, but obviously it's not a thriving civilization of Jovians.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I didn't say we "know" life is rare in the galaxy.

I said it's a good informed guess, or a good hypothesis that life is rare.

I did not say you said we know life is rare in the galaxy, Cypress. I said the notion that the blind guess "life is rare in our galaxy: is an absurd hypothesis.

And it is. I am not attacking you. I am attacking the idea that reasonable, meaningful guesses can be made about something like that...or about the existence or non-existence of gods.

SETI has been around for decades, most exoplanets we've found cannot concievably host life. We had high expectations of microbial life on Mars.

Many of the exoplanets we have discovered (which number about 5000 out of billions of planets) cannot host life as we know it. But we may not know of the many types of life that can exist.

The universe is deadly to life. The cosmos is bathed is cosmic radiation and gamma rays. It takes a perfect storm of events for a planet to evolve with defense mechanisms against that.

There are dangers. But we do not know how much life exists in the universe...nor the types of life that exist. Some may be immune to dangers we face...and can only exist in environments that are fatal to us.

The laws of chemistry are the same everywhere in the universe.

YOU do not know that for certain. No one does.

Biology is going to require complexity. No element is anywhere remotely close to the chemical complexity and flexibility as carbon. Not by a country mile. Not remotely in the same ballpark.

Life may exist in ways we cannot fathom.

You can't build a 747 with just matchsticks. It is a complex machine

Okay...something on which we can agree. But so what?


I would ask anyone who believes there is a realistic chance of silicon or titanium based life, why we don't see it on Earth. There is no law of nature I am aware of that states only carbon based life is allowed on Earth. This planet is 4.5 billion years old, plenty of time for the evolution of novel and exotic forms of alternative life, and this planet hasca huge range of geochemical and thermal conditions to incubate exotic alternative forms of life.[/QUOTE]

And such life may exist elsewhere.

You are making a blind guess about the rarity of life in our galaxy.

I have asked you a question that directly relates to that. You have not answered it. Before we continue, would you please answer it:

We cannot even define what "life being rare in the galaxy" or "life being abundant in the galaxy" are.

Would one planet with life for every 100 stars be "rare" or "abundant?"

 

[Cypress]

I fail to see why Frank is wrapped around the axle on this. The evidence indicates life is rare by virtue of the fact we haven't found it anywhere in our solar system except on Earth or elsewhere in our galaxy...except on Earth. While the odds favor life would begin elsewhere simply due to the numbers involved, clearly it's not as ubiquitous as I and others had hoped in the 1960s.

Maybe primitive life will be discovered in the methane oceans of Io, but obviously it's not a thriving civilization of Jovians.

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

 

[Cypress]

I did not say you said we know life is rare in the galaxy, Cypress. I said the notion that the blind guess "life is rare in our galaxy: is an absurd hypothesis.

And it is. I am not attacking you. I am attacking the idea that reasonable, meaningful guesses can be made about something like that...or about the existence or non-existence of gods.


Many of the exoplanets we have discovered (which number about 5000 out of billions of planets) cannot host life as we know it. But we may not know of the many types of life that can exist.


There are dangers. But we do not know how much life exists in the universe...nor the types of life that exist. Some may be immune to dangers we face...and can only exist in environments that are fatal to us.



YOU do not know that for certain. No one does.


Life may exist in ways we cannot fathom.


Okay...something on which we can agree. But so what?


I would ask anyone who believes there is a realistic chance of silicon or titanium based life, why we don't see it on Earth. There is no law of nature I am aware of that states only carbon based life is allowed on Earth. This planet is 4.5 billion years old, plenty of time for the evolution of novel and exotic forms of alternative life, and this planet hasca huge range of geochemical and thermal conditions to incubate exotic alternative forms of life.

And such life may exist elsewhere.

You are making a blind guess about the rarity of life in our galaxy.

I have asked you a question that directly relates to that. You have not answered it. Before we continue, would you please answer it:

We cannot even define what "life being rare in the galaxy" or "life being abundant in the galaxy" are.

Would one planet with life for every 100 stars be "rare" or "abundant?"

]
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.

 

[Cypress]

Life is going to have complexity, organization , metabolism, reaction to stimuli, the ability to reproduce, grow, adapt.


If it doesn't have those things, we won't even recognize it as life, and it's pointless to guess and speculate about it.


The laws of chemistry are universal. I just don't think there is any reasonable way to expect iron, silicon, titanium, to have the chemical complexity and flexibility for anything we would recognize as metabolism, genetics, physiology. There is no element anywhere on the periodic table that can even remotely come close the the properties of carbon to promote chemical complexity and flexibility.

 

[Ross Dolan]

]
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.

We have, at this time, found evidence of about 5000 exoplanets. You are saying a handful of those may possibly be habitable. A conservative estimate comes up with more than 100 Billion planets existing in our galaxy.

That is one very large handful of possible life planets. And add to that the number that may have life forms that DO NOT depend on conditions or chemistry that life here in our solar system need...and the handful becomes even larger. I argue, that the number is certainly large enough to eliminate the notion that life is rare!

We do not know. It may be a hell of a lot rarer than those suppositions indicate...and it also may be a hell of a lot more plentiful than they suggest.

Best to just leave it at "We do not know if it is rare or plentiful", no matter how we define those terms.

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

And it may well be more hospitable to life than you suppose. With a lot more diversification than you seem willing to suppose.

The design of the universe is lethal to life.

You do not know that. The design of the universe may be in a way that allows for LIFE to exist in so many forms, depending on what the elements of a system encounter.

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

Perhaps that YOU can conceive of...but certainly not beyond what I can conceive 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.[/QUOTE]

With all the respect in the world, Cypress...neither you or any scientist on this planet knows for certain about the conditions around which LIFE can occur...nor do any of you know the extent of differences in the kinds of life that exist.

 

[Into Тhe Night]

Life is going to have complexity, organization , metabolism, reaction to stimuli, the ability to reproduce, grow, adapt.


If it doesn't have those things, we won't even recognize it as life, and it's pointless to guess and speculate about it.


The laws of chemistry are universal. I just don't think there is any reasonable way to expect iron, silicon, titanium, to have the chemical complexity and flexibility for anything we would recognize as metabolism, genetics, physiology. There is no element anywhere on the periodic table that can even remotely come close the the properties of carbon to promote chemical complexity and flexibility.

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.

 

[gfm7175]

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?

Polling is almost exclusively used to dishonestly manipulate people's beliefs, not as an attempt to honestly gauge what they are. That's why any particular polling results are essentially meaningless.

One can ask a question about the same topic in two different ways and get two completely different results. E.g. A group being funded by Planned Parenthood (an odd name for an organization that largely deals with UNPLANNED pregnancies by quite literally REMOVING the existence of PARENTHOOD) can ask the question in a manner that yields high results in favor of their favored viewpoint, and a group being funded by Americans United For Life can ask the question in a manner that yields high results in favor of their favored viewpoint.

Meh.

 

[Cypress]

We have, at this time, found evidence of about 5000 exoplanets. You are saying a handful of those may possibly be habitable. A conservative estimate comes up with more than 100 Billion planets existing in our galaxy.

That is one very large handful of possible life planets. And add to that the number that may have life forms that DO NOT depend on conditions or chemistry that life here in our solar system need...and the handful becomes even larger. I argue, that the number is certainly large enough to eliminate the notion that life is rare!

We do not know. It may be a hell of a lot rarer than those suppositions indicate...and it also may be a hell of a lot more plentiful than they suggest.

Best to just leave it at "We do not know if it is rare or plentiful", no matter how we define those terms.




And it may well be more hospitable to life than you suppose. With a lot more diversification than you seem willing to suppose.



You do not know that. The design of the universe may be in a way that allows for LIFE to exist in so many forms, depending on what the elements of a system encounter.




Perhaps that YOU can conceive of...but certainly not beyond what I can conceive 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.

With all the respect in the world, Cypress...neither you or any scientist on this planet knows for certain about the conditions around which LIFE can occur...nor do any of you know the extent of differences in the kinds of life that exist.

I wrote that a handful of exoplanets we have found might possibly be habitable.

I have no idea whether they actually have life.


We understand chemistry reasonably well at this point. It is not super mysterious.

There are no elements on the periodic table that have the chemical complexity and flexibility as carbon. That's a scientific fact. None of them are anywhere in the same ballpark. Life needs a liquid solvent. Silicon is almost insoluble in water. Silicon life would probably have to be breathing or exhaling sand.

Anyone who wants to claim iron or silicon life is possible needs to explain how that would chemicàlly work.

They also need to explain why we have never seen evidence of anything but carbon life on Earth. If the universe is pregnant with ubiquitous, non,,-carbon life, why didn't some of it evolve on Earth? There's no rule Earth is only allowed carbon based life m


It is a hypothesis that the galaxy is pregnant with ubiquitous life. There is no one who can say that hypothesis is unequivocally wrong.

I just happen to think it's a bad hypothesis.

 

[Cypress]

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.

My educated guess is that advanced intelligent life is exceedingly rare in this galaxy.
Evidence for primitive, microbial life is probably all we can hope to find in the foreseeable future. That's my two cents.

 

[Cypress]

"Most scientists doubt that silicon-based life can work chemically; only carbon seems to have a chance at the complex chemistry required."

--> Laird Close, PhD, astrophysicist, University of Arizona

 

[ZenMode]

Polling is almost exclusively used to dishonestly manipulate people's beliefs, not as an attempt to honestly gauge what they are. That's why any particular polling results are essentially meaningless.

One can ask a question about the same topic in two different ways and get two completely different results. E.g. A group being funded by Planned Parenthood (an odd name for an organization that largely deals with UNPLANNED pregnancies by quite literally REMOVING the existence of PARENTHOOD) can ask the question in a manner that yields high results in favor of their favored viewpoint, and a group being funded by Americans United For Life can ask the question in a manner that yields high results in favor of their favored viewpoint.

Meh.

Sure. There are many issues with polling, but they're still more accurate than throwing a dart at a dart board.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I wrote that a handful of exoplanets we have found might possibly be habitable.

I have no idea whether they actually have life.

So you did...and I have not disputed that.

We understand chemistry reasonably well at this point. It is not super mysterious.

Okay. I am not a chemist, so I will take your word for that.

We certainly seem to know how the chemistry and fundamental laws of physics work here. But we do not know if there are variations in other places that simply do not make an appearance here. It can happen. We do not know if there are other places where things are different.

There are no elements on the periodic table that have the chemical complexity and flexibility as carbon. That's a scientific fact. None of them are anywhere in the same ballpark. Life needs a liquid solvent. Silicon is almost insoluble in water. Silicon life would probably have to be breathing or exhaling sand.

Okay...and perhaps they do.

We do not know.

Anyone who wants to claim iron or silicon life is possible needs to explain how that would chemicàlly work.

Actually they do not. They can simply assert that it is POSSIBLE.

If you are saying it is not possible, that explanation is the one that would have to be given.

They also need to explain why we have never seen evidence of anything but carbon life on Earth.

Maybe life is a function of the environment...and the environment here resulted in only carbon based life. Perhaps in another environment where it is more propitious for life to be based on a different element...that element will prevail. Perhaps somewhere on another world there is a conversation occurring between two silicon based life form where one is arguing that ONLY silicon based life can exist...and the other is arguing that perhaps in a different environment, carbon could be the base for life.

If the universe is pregnant with ubiquitous, non,,-carbon life, why didn't some of it evolve on Earth? There's no rule Earth is only allowed carbon based life m

Maybe it just cannot happen here. Maybe there is a natural rule that requires any life that exists here...must be carbon based.

We do not know.

It is a hypothesis that the galaxy is pregnant with ubiquitous life. There is no one who can say that hypothesis is unequivocally wrong.

I just happen to think it's a bad hypothesis.

I understand that...because I think the opposite "hypothesis" (that life is rare) is an absurd one.

We just differ on this, Cypress. I'm sticking with, "I do not know." Just as I do in the religious discussions. Some people will choose,"Life is rare in our galaxy" and some, "Life is abundant in our galaxy."

Makes no sense to me.

I just fight it whenever I see it.

"We do not know...and do not have enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess"...just seems vastly superior.

 

[Ross Dolan]

My educated guess is that advanced intelligent life is exceedingly rare in this galaxy.
Evidence for primitive, microbial life is probably all we can hope to find in the foreseeable future. That's my two cents.

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?