What's more believable; Aliens or God?

[outhouse]

Your funny

According to the rare earth guesses, we should not exist.



but we do!, since we can. so can other worlds develop life simular to ours

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

False again

and taking my statements out of context.

Then explain how the following statements DON'T show that according to you people who aren't experts in biology, like Sagan and Drake, have no business talking about this issue:

john barrow is not a biologist and not qualified to make such statements. I know more about biology then he does.

My response:

You don't even know enough of the field to realize which specialties are relevant!!? Are you aware that when the National Research Council reviewed work done in this area, not only did they rely on astrophysicists lke Barrow, the programs they reviewed did as well. How can you say that experts in astrophysics and cosmology are not qualified to make statements about the conditions for life and the likelihood of it existing elsewhere? A biologist is much more qualified to answer questions relating to life, even life emerging here, but what do they know about the conditions outside of earth? Astrobiology uses specialists in many fields, biology included (and the works I referred to were written at least in part by biologists), but the majority of specialists are physicists.

Your response:

Biologist answer questions about life, all life as we know it. why ask someone clueless to life to make a valid scientific statement .??? its not their field and idiotic to think they should be stepping over their expertise

So, explain how this doesn't show that according to you Sagan, Drake, and anyone else who isn't a biologist has no business talking about extraterrestrial life?

You posted creationist who promote pseudoscience

I posted references to academic works, not the people behind them. I wouldn't cite Francis Collins' book The Language of God as science, but I would cite the works he published in journals and academic publications. That's what I did. I cited scientific works.

False again

I showed you your authors creationist motives were uncovered in Davids book

No, you didn't. What you did was link to amazon because you didn't read the book or the article about it. I actually quoted it. What he talked about was how the book was used by creationists, not that that it was creationist or wasn't science. He acknowledges it was, and I quoted him as saying so from his book. You, once again, relied on incomplete information because you haven't done the research and ended up referencing a book which specifically states Rare Earth is a work of science.

if the wiki information is false, you can change it if you have valid information.

But this wiki information is not only not false it is right under its definition

I don't care about wiki information enough to change it. I am a researcher in a scientific field (cognitive science). No scientist I know wastes time using wiki to understand a scientific field. They use journals, conference proceedings, and academic books published by academic publishing companies.

that a creationist influenced it

Really? On what page? I'll look at the page you give me, and find where he says it.

while wiki states one of the authors is a creationist

Who?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

why cant you refute the statement??

I can. "Our conclusion that the early emergence of life on Earth is consistent with life being very rare in the universe for plausible priors is robust...We had to find ourselves on a planet that has life on it, but we did not have to find ourselves ([FONT=AdvTTcd6a94b5.I][FONT=AdvTTcd6a94b5.I]i) in a galaxy that has life on a planet besides Earth, nor ([FONT=AdvTTcd6a94b5.I][FONT=AdvTTcd6a94b5.I]ii[/FONT][/FONT]) on a planet on which life arose multiple, independent times. Learning that either ([FONT=AdvTTcd6a94b5.I][FONT=AdvTTcd6a94b5.I]i[/FONT][/FONT]) or ([FONT=AdvTTcd6a94b5.I][FONT=AdvTTcd6a94b5.I]ii[/FONT][/FONT]) describes our world would constitute data that are not subject to the selection effect described above. In short, if we should find evidence of life that arose wholly independently of us[FONT=AdvTT9996936a+20][FONT=AdvTT9996936a+20]—[/FONT][/FONT]either via astronomical searches that reveal life on another planet or via geological and biological studies that find evidence of life on Earth with a different origin from us[FONT=AdvTT9996936a+20][FONT=AdvTT9996936a+20]—[/FONT][/FONT]we would have considerably stronger grounds to conclude that life is probably common in our galaxy."[/FONT][/FONT]

From Spiegel and Turner's 2012 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In short, the reason the notion of a vast universe says nothing about the probability of life elsewhere is because we don't know how probable the emergence of life is. A great deal of research suggests it is extremely complex and vastly improbable, so much so that despite the vastness of the universe, that vastness has nothing against the vast improbability of life emerging.

Moreover, as Spiegel and Turner's bayesian analysis shows (which was already shown in works such as Mash's paper years ago), people infer based on what they know and tend to ignore what they don't. We know life arose on earth, but not how. Given such a postiori knowledge, people wrongly assume that as life arose here, given the vast number of planets, it must have emerged elsewhere. This is logically flawed and unsupported by probability theory or any mathematics, because we do not understand the probability space. Those who view it likely that life has or will emerge elsewhere believe that the improbability of living organisms emerging is overweighed by the number of planets. But this is based on a number of assumptions others have questioned and found wanting.

you change the conversation and run, but not refute.

There's your refutation.

what makes the earth so rare, that intelligent life might not be out there.??

Again, we are dealing with probabilities. Unfortunately, we lack most of the parameters, and for a great many others we have only educated guesses. What makes the earth "rare" is that it happened to be a perfect distance from the sun, with an excellent total mass, and wonderful distribution of elements, and changed over billions of years such that the conditions necessary for life came together in vastly improbable ways. How improbable is unknown, because 1) we don't know how life emerged 2) we don't know how likely it was to continue and 3) we don't know what types of alterations, including little tiny ones, may have stopped life from emerging here at all.

because every part of the ReT has been debunked by Dr Darling

You are aware that just because scientists disagree, it doesn't mean that one chapter in a popular book "refutes" a whole lot of other scientific publications, including those published after the book Rare Earth, right? Also, given the fact that you haven't read either Rare Earth OR Life Everywhere, I find it hard to understand your position that one has "debunked" the other.

the fact we are here dictates, it happens in the universe. Add the fact we cannot explore to discount it, OPENS the possibility for LIFE to exist somewhere else.

Yes. It also opens the possibility for a common flaw in human reasoning: induction from the known while ignoring the unknown. I can refer you to the psychological literature on the subject if you wish. I've already provided at least two references to papers published in journals on the mathematical flaws with the leap from "life is here" to "life is probably somewhere else in the universe."

You alse ignore man has a bad habit of creating deities at will, and how the god concept has evolved with the ever changing cultures.

I didn't, actually. I quoted from a publication in Science "Deities for Atheists" which noted how the "god concept" for some scientists like Drake and Sagen is extraterrestrials.

 

[Gharib]

Good Eselam long time no speak.

I would suggest something tangible and yet I know there is no such thing.

many things that we know of and accept as true/real are not tangible. however, we accept them because of their effect.

many intangible things exist which we accept as true/real for example gravity.

if i presented a miracle from God that was mentioned about Moses in the Qur'an which science has confirmed true would that count? i'm not looking to waste your time, would that qualify as evidence of Gods existence?

 

[darkendless]

many things that we know of and accept as true/real are not tangible. however, we accept them because of their effect.

many intangible things exist which we accept as true/real for example gravity.

if i presented a miracle from God that was mentioned about Moses in the Qur'an which science has confirmed true would that count? i'm not looking to waste your time, would that qualify as evidence of Gods existence?

You are very correct, gravity is an explanation we have defined out of necessity.

However, the Quran nor the bible nor any religious text for that matter has any acceptable evidence regarding the existance of God. An example would be proving that evolution is proven by the theory of evolution. Its not, evolution is based on facts which are observable. The bible is severely lacking on references to the events. The claims it makes are unsubstantiated using evidence that without bias can be identified as true.

 

[Daviso452]

Both these concepts are new to me. Can we just agree that probability don't mean **** until we done found dem space people? You'se can sit and talks all you'se wants, but it don't make no difference to the truth. What be da truth? Da truth be WE DON'T KNOW 'CAUSE WE AIN'T NEVER FOUND ANY ALIENS.

My ******* god. The both of you. I'm ashamed. I haven't read your whole discussion and I do not plan on it. Just agree that we have never actually found aliens and so we have no idea which is more likely. Okay? Jesus Christ...

 

[Gharib]

Both these concepts are new to me. Can we just agree that probability don't mean **** until we done found dem space people? You'se can sit and talks all you'se wants, but it don't make no difference to the truth. What be da truth? Da truth be WE DON'T KNOW 'CAUSE WE AIN'T NEVER FOUND ANY ALIENS.

My ******* god. The both of you. I'm ashamed. I haven't read your whole discussion and I do not plan on it. Just agree that we have never actually found aliens and so we have no idea which is more likely. Okay? Jesus Christ...

you don't believe in Jesus peace be upon him.

 

[Gharib]

You are very correct, gravity is an explanation we have defined out of necessity.

However, the Quran nor the bible nor any religious text for that matter has any acceptable evidence regarding the existance of God. An example would be proving that evolution is proven by the theory of evolution. Its not, evolution is based on facts which are observable. The bible is severely lacking on references to the events. The claims it makes are unsubstantiated using evidence that without bias can be identified as true.

so when the Qur'an says that the Universe is Expanding you are saying there is no evidence to back up that claim right?

all scientists whether religious or non-religious agree that the universe is expanding, the Qur'an says this, it first said this over 1400 years ago.

 

[mr black]

so when the Qur'an says that the Universe is Expanding you are saying there is no evidence to back up that claim right?

all scientists whether religious or non-religious agree that the universe is expanding, the Qur'an says this, it first said this over 1400 years ago.

reference?

 

[Gharib]

reference?

“We have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it” [51:47]

Stephen Hawking - The Expanding Universe

[youtube]DClEXO0pCZ4[/youtube]
Stephen Hawking - The Expanding Universe - YouTube

 

[mr black]

“We have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it” [51:47]

Was that in reference to one of the seven heavens "We" created over earth? And it's not steady!

 

[blackout]

The AodGliens.

Where is Dr. Who when you need him.

 

[Gharib]

Was that in reference to one of the seven heavens "We" created over earth? And it's not steady!

a more detailed explanation of the meaning of the verse from arabic:

"This huge universe that We have created, is not a finished work, but We are expanding it continuously, and new and ever new manifestations of Our creation are appearing in it every moment. How do you then think that such a marvelous Creator would not be able to repeat His creation."

to read the scholarly opinion on the verse follow the link:

The Cosmic "Smoke" - Qur`anic Miracles - Shari`ah - OnIslam.net

 

[mr black]

a more detailed explanation of the meaning of the verse from arabic:

"This huge universe that We have created, is not a finished work, but We are expanding it continuously, and new and ever new manifestations of Our creation are appearing in it every moment. How do you then think that such a marvelous Creator would not be able to repeat His creation."

to read the scholarly opinion on the verse follow the link:

The Cosmic "Smoke" - Qur`anic Miracles - Shari`ah - OnIslam.net

I don't think someone's interpretation of a verse can be taken as gospel as it were. You claimed that the verse confirmed the expansion of the universe 1400yrs ago. I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be the case, given the use of the word heaven elsewhere in the writings.

 

[Rakhel]

Both these concepts are new to me. Can we just agree that probability don't mean **** until we done found dem space people? You'se can sit and talks all you'se wants, but it don't make no difference to the truth. What be da truth? Da truth be WE DON'T KNOW 'CAUSE WE AIN'T NEVER FOUND ANY ALIENS.

My ******* god. The both of you. I'm ashamed. I haven't read your whole discussion and I do not plan on it. Just agree that we have never actually found aliens and so we have no idea which is more likely. Okay? Jesus Christ...

I believe you just might be asking for too much.

 

[Corkscrew]

I would be absolutely floored if there was no other life in the universe. I would be equally floored along with disappointed if man’s religious based God existed.