Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Guy Threepwood]

It is, thank you very much.


Why would they have found earth? The galaxy is massive, there are untold numbers of stars, planets & asteroids for them to visit.


This is all true. But you are forgetting something. Namely, how radically different life even on our planet can be. There is a type of mold that is growing on the Chernobyl Sarcophagus. It feeds on ionizing radiation. Imagine something more complex than a mold who manages to do that. It would be utterly, completely alien and it would have no interest in finding 'us' because we do not consume the same things. Our needs would be radically different. There is also reason to believe that the spectrum of light visible to us need not be universal in other life.

Again, if you want to see aliens, look at the most radically different forms of life already here and imagine something even more different than that, because you and I would have more in common with a cabbage than with anything from another planet.


Different technological development?

Or, if you'll humour for a moment, perhaps we live in what amounts to a galactic 'nature preserve' of sorts. I mean is it really that strange to think that other sentient life might want to not-intervene with our development? Perhaps they(the aliens) have had a bad record regarding the 'uplifting' of life, and find it morally wrong to interfere until we've reached some level of technological & social advancement that would prevent us from losing our minds and deciding to fight them.

The galaxy is pretty big... but most is not too hospitable, if we detected a solar system which looked anything like ours, we'd be very curious, we'd certainly look for signals and probably send a probe- it would be extremely attractive real estate to anything close to our biology- which again is not an unreasonable assumption for sentient life.

The mold at Chernobyl is not having this conversation, and never will, extremophiles prove the point, that the conditions we developed in are those which make the best use of the inherent capacity of the universe for life, the same table of elements exists on Mars, but the conditions have to be just right. That we look for water as a sign for habitability on other planets is not a subjective, arbitrary condition, it's a uniquely life friendly habitat.. in ways that reflect the inherent chemistry of the entire universe.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually, the "magician" is much more a theistic approach than a scientific one as science does not rely on magic as most theists do.

which is more magic, a creative magician intentionally making a rabbit appear to come from nothing, or the rabbit actually spontaneously coming from nothing for no particular purpose?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

millions of roman Empires existing now, would imply gabillions having existed in the past- not one single one went on to colonized the galaxy, or at least transmit a signal we could detect?

If they're capable of colonizing the galaxy, why should we expect they're using the same type of technology we're using to detect signals? Their long distance communication could be something we couldn't even comprehend, especially if they're using it for interstellar communication.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When you are discussing the detection of alien life you need to factor in the distances and technologies of communication. Seti and such are, I think, a waste of time because they are looking for analog transmissions; which due to the innate superiority if digital transmissions, only persist for a very small window in time. Digital transmissions, unless you know exactly what to look for and how to decypher them, are just white noise.

which do we transmit?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Must run, appreciate the civil debate as always folks...

 

[metis]

which is more magic, a creative magician intentionally making a rabbit appear to come from nothing, or the rabbit actually spontaneously coming from nothing for no particular purpose?

Nobody that I have read here is saying that the "rabbit" is coming from nothing, nor am I. As far as "purpose" is concerned, tell me what purpose does a miscarriage or child borne with serious defects that cause much suffering and early death perform?

 

[Sapiens]

which do we transmit?

Analog radio began, arguable sometime between 1900 and 1920. Today, analog radio is still the dominant form but digital radio broadcasting is making strong inroads and is likely to take over withing the next ten to twenty years. TV started out analog and now is almost exclusively digital.

The point is that we can only expect civilizations to be using the detectable analog form of transmission for a rather short time, so not only must we be listening to the right place, we must be doing so during a very narrow time window in their history.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nobody that I have read here is saying that the "rabbit" is coming from nothing, nor am I. As far as "purpose" is concerned, tell me what purpose does a miscarriage or child borne with serious defects that cause much suffering and early death perform?

whatever the analogy, the wand waiving itself, the rabbit appearing for no purpose, the woman hovering above the table - all without the aid of creative intelligence - is not an inherently less magical proposition.

we have to account for this grand illusion, the design of the universe somehow. Either it was created on purpose or spontaneously.
which is more 'magic' is debatable

God created a world with no suffering, hate, fear, grieving, which still exists today, for Jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, empathy either. would you trade?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Analog radio began, arguable sometime between 1900 and 1920. Today, analog radio is still the dominant form but digital radio broadcasting is making strong inroads and is likely to take over withing the next ten to twenty years. TV started out analog and now is almost exclusively digital.

The point is that we can only expect civilizations to be using the detectable analog form of transmission for a rather short time, so not only must we be listening to the right place, we must be doing so during a very narrow time window in their history.

so we transmit both, and when it came to sending a message designed for aliens to understand, we chose digital waveforms yes?

 

[McBell]

we understand that the probability of happening upon the universal constants by chance are so staggeringly low, that it would require a practically infinite imaginary multiverse to fluke this one.

Yet no one has been able to show their math...
Not for the probability of the universe existing with out god and not for the probability of it existing with a god.
Cause to say it is more probable with god, you must have both sets of numbers to compare...

So this bold empty claim can be dismissed as nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[metis]

whatever the analogy, the wand waiving itself, the rabbit appearing for no purpose, the woman hovering above the table - all without the aid of creative intelligence - is not an inherently less magical proposition.

we have to account for this grand illusion, the design of the universe somehow. Either it was created on purpose or spontaneously.
which is more 'magic' is debatable

God created a world with no suffering, hate, fear, grieving, which still exists today, for Jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, empathy either. would you trade?

I can't make heads nor tails of the last sentence.

 

[viole]

this isn't converting me to atheist viole! I'm still skeptical, call it what you will

Being skeptical is a good thing.

And I am not trying to convert you to anything. I am just debating in a debate forum. But even if I did try to convert you, I would expect you to convert me to theism. This is, at the end of the day, what debating is: make the other think about his/her position.

Since the possible existence of God is a pretty important thing, I am very interested to know if I missed something. If you have something substantial, then I am ready to change my mind. After all, I have no faith whatsoever, so a rational argumentation in favor of God is the only thing that interests me.

Alas, when arguments are challenged and analytically scrutinized, they tend to look like the classical emperor without clothes. Just a bunch of empty words without a clear cut meaning. They just serve the purpose of giving a cozy feeling to anyone who does not take the time to go deep into them, as long as they support his confirmation bias.

Leading me to the conclusion that finding rational evidence of God is a waste of time, or an exercise of self assurance.

But why do you look for independent evidence? Is faith not enough?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sapiens]

so we transmit both, and when it came to sending a message designed for aliens to understand, we chose digital waveforms yes?

No we do not send signals that we expect aliens to hear, we listen for signals that we hope aliens have sent long in the past. Digital signals are lost in the white noise, analog signals may be detectable.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No we do not send signals that we expect aliens to hear, we listen for signals that we hope aliens have sent long in the past. Digital signals are lost in the white noise, analog signals may be detectable.

You'd have to argue that with Active SETI

The Arecibo message was designed specifically to be recognizable to aliens as from an intelligent source, it was a digital signal since that could better relay simple graphic images

 

[Sapiens]

You'd have to argue that with Active SETI

The Arecibo message was designed specifically to be recognizable to aliens as from an intelligent source, it was a digital signal since that could better relay simple graphic images

I stand corrected. It's been a little more than 10 years since I've been down to Puerto Rico and last I'd heard they were out of funding and closing down, so I've not been paying a whole lot of attention. In any case, in term of the detection of analog vs. digital signals, that what I was told when I toured Aericibo.

 

[Nietzsche]

whatever the analogy, the wand waiving itself, the rabbit appearing for no purpose, the woman hovering above the table - all without the aid of creative intelligence - is not an inherently less magical proposition.

we have to account for this grand illusion, the design of the universe somehow. Either it was created on purpose or spontaneously.
which is more 'magic' is debatable

Then why is it that the overwhelming majority of people in the relevant fields(the ones that deal with astronomy, be it astrophysics or others)) say that while a god could have created the universe, there is no need for one to create the universe?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I stand corrected. It's been a little more than 10 years since I've been down to Puerto Rico and last I'd heard they were out of funding and closing down, so I've not been paying a whole lot of attention. In any case, in term of the detection of analog vs. digital signals, that what I was told when I toured Aericibo.

That must be a fantastic sight to see. I take your point on detection difficultly though

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then why is it that the overwhelming majority of people in the relevant fields(the ones that deal with astronomy, be it astrophysics or others)) say that while a god could have created the universe, there is no need for one to create the universe?

99.9% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they're the experts right?

Let's remember again..

The overwhelming majority of people in the relevant fields(the ones who dealt with astronomy, be it astrophysics or others)) also rejected Lemaitre's primeval atom for it's unfashionable theistic implications. what scientists say and what science says are often diametrically opposed

 

[Sapiens]

That must be a fantastic sight to see. I take your point on detection difficultly though

I was down that the Univ. of PR marine lab at La Paguera on a project and on some days off I drove around the island. I saw a sign and just drove in, the Seti folks were very hospitable.

... what scientists say and what science says are often diametrically opposed

While that might have been true in his day the changes in the speed of publishing and communication keeps scientists and science much more closely in sync today.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I was down that the Univ. of PR marine lab at La Paguera on a project and on some days off I drove around the island. I saw a sign and just drove in, the Seti folks were very hospitable.

While that might have been true in his day the changes in the speed of publishing and communication keeps scientists and science much more closely in sync today.

It's an interesting question though, certainly to the human ear an analogue signal would be more recognizable-
but to a computer, it would depend- if it were a binary signal of any kind, that in itself would be interesting enough to look for meaning.
As in the Arecibo message, the length of the strings might be a place to start- signs of buffered/segmented sequences etc
but it would be much more difficult to interpret a code that was not directly meant to be interpreted.

Speed of communication keeps scientists, bad science, the media and politicians more in sync also- the 'earth like' Gliese 'discovery' , melting Himalayas, the Higgs Boson... all might have benefited from a little more careful scrutiny before being communicated?