Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Master KChief on May 09, 2012, 09:28:18 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/light-alien-super-earth-seen-1st-time-215909030.html (http://news.yahoo.com/light-alien-super-earth-seen-1st-time-215909030.html)
Just curious what people think about there being the possibility of life on other planets.
-
In the words of Larry Norman
"If there's life on other planets
then I'm sure that He (Jesus) must know
and He's been there once already
and has died to save their souls"
"He's an unidentified flying object,
You will see Him in the air
He's an unidentified flying object
And you will drop your hands and stair"
"you will be afraid to tell your neighbors
They might think that its not true
But when you open up the mornin paper
You will know they've seen it too"
U.F.O. By Larry Norman (The Father of Christian Rock)
-
The universe is big. Really big. Bigger than I can imagine. Given that, it seems like it is all but guaranteed there is not only life, but intelligent life out there. But it's probably a million light years away, so it won't effect me unless we learn to go .999c.
That being said, this article is garbage. How is it DENSER if its mass is 8x that of earth and its radius is 2x? 2^3 = 8, brohan.
EDIT: Okay. I read that article earlier today. I just reread it and see they updated it. I still don't trust it if the author missed that the first time.
-
Statistically this is a no brainer. There are far far too many planets out there for this one to be the only on with life on it.
-
What if They are out there, and they are not a fallen race like us? What if they didn't eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
-
Well, God ment for that to happen. everything is in an eternal plan, and I believe Free will and rebellion is part of it. Can you havea hero in the bible and not an evil character to match?
Untill he returns, that is!
-
My problem with this is the infinite monkey theorem. When pointing out the insane odds it would take to create life, an evolutionist will always say "Given an infinite amount of time and space, it'd eventually happen." And to expect this to duplicate it twice within the universe's expanding state? Seems unlikely. I'm no expert on the subject though, so feel free to correct me.
-
Actually, if Newton was correct in his beliefs, it wouldn't need "an infinite amount of time". It'd happen immediately.
TO BAD NEWTON WAS WRONG BRO.
-
That article doesn't mention anything about life as far as I read.
-
That article doesn't mention anything about life as far as I read.
Yeah, light ≠ life. There's a possibility, but it's not necessarily proof - or even circumstantial evidence.
-
I do not believe there is life on other planets and here's why:
The bible says we are his best creation (The bible will say this in different ways depending on your translation), if we are the best creation that means there is not life more intelligent then the life here on earth. Now you may say that just means that we are the most prized creation, not the only planet with created life on it. Well if you look at the statistics, it is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE for life to be on any other planet given the NEARLY PERFECT conditions needed to support life. Also in the bible there are many things that indicate no other life forms in the universe save for the ones on this planet, I will not get into these verses thought.
In my next post I will post an article from AiG (Answers in Genesis) that shares more on this subject.
-
Here is a link for what I believe:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-ets-and-ufos-real (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-ets-and-ufos-real)
-
So you don't believe in life on other planets because of the statistics involved, and also because you believe a higher power that nullifies statistics in the first place.....k.
-
If there was an intellectually developed form life capable of space travel we'd have found them by now. Thus we are alone in the universe. God created the world. God sent his son to die for the fallen race of beings created in his image known as humans. I'm fairly certain he only died once. Not willing to argue this standpoint so don't bother.
-
We are an intelligent life form that has not mastered space travel so does that mean we don't exist? We've been to the moon and nowhere else. The universe is huge beyond comprehension, just because we haven't found it yet does not mean it is not there, and even if our species never advances to the point of being able to travel t other solar systems and galaxies, it is still no indication of there not being life somewhere else in the universe.
-
Even if you master space travel, you can't go past c.
-
If there was an intellectually developed form life capable of space travel we'd have found them by now. Thus we are alone in the universe. God created the world. God sent his son to die for the fallen race of beings created in his image known as humans. I'm fairly certain he only died once. Not willing to argue this standpoint so don't bother.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fthe_search.png&hash=a043eb61c48d204f5b9913f9a999cca166108ed4)
-
The thing I always think about when the topic goes here is, what's to say we're not the most advanced civilization?
-
I think, since it seems pretty well established that you can't travel past the speed of light, that it doesn't seem likely that there are galactic space federations out there that we don't know about (at least none that we will come in contact with unless we're really bored or Russia decides to race America to some random planet).
Is it possible? Well, it's thinkable, so it's possible in that sense.
Is it likely? This is actually completely theory dependent.
There was, in fact, a time when the idea of other planets was unthinkable.
Pre-Copernicus, the idea that there were other earths was impossible (although there were a few Greeks in the 6th century that had considered it). The reason is that gravity, during that time period, wasn't explained by the earth's mass. The theory during that time period was that everything moved towards the center of the universe (earth), which was why the earth was round (everything moving equally towards the center). So for there to be another earth with the Pre-Copernican theory would be both impossible and inconceivable, because it would be dragged towards the center of the universe (our planet).
Of course, with our current theory (post-Newton), life on other planets is conceivable, but only because the structure of the theory itself allows us to imagine it possible. We don't actually have any scientific observations to go off regarding the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
The thing I always think about when the topic goes here is, what's to say we're not the most advanced civilization?
I thought China was doing better than us now?
-
My simple but all inclusive answer to this is based on the idea that we were never meant to die. If we were an imortal ageless being (sinless) eventually our planet would become overpopulated. We would need to expand our reach to other planets and over time the far corners of the universe. Which also makes sense because the universe is ever expanding. Basically I belive we were desigend to be interplanetary beings.
(you'll also need to remember that we would be useing 100% of our brains giving us far greater scientific and engineering abilities)
But no I don't think aliens are out there...
-
What do you mean, using 100% of our brains?
-
At this point in time the average human is only useing around 15% or less of its brain's natural ability.
-
That's actually not true. We use all of our brain, and most of it is active all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth)
Oh. It seems to me that it is very likely that there are simple, microscopic organisms on other planets, simply because of the regularity of nature (in terms of elements, for instance).
But you have to wonder if what we consider "intelligence" is innate or sociological. Whales, for instance, have much larger brains that human beings, and I heard a lecture in which a neuroscientist who studies whales said that they even have the areas of the brain that human beings use for religious belief/experience.
Since we have no idea what whales are saying to each other and don't have Spock around to mind meld, I think that's as far as we can go besides speculation.
Anyways, just because there is other intelligent life doesn't mean that they would be, say, "space faring." Look at the events in history that led to the development of science and technology. There are many factors which are seemingly "accidental." If the Persians had succeeded in invading Greece, for instance, we might have never had science as we know it.
-
I like this guy...
-
Well that's interesting, but without trying to start a new debate here I still believe we were actually more intelligent in the past. All of my evidence for this is compleatly circumstantial though.
Take the Pyrimids, Stonhenge, the Nazca Lines, Even Noah's Ark. How do we explain how to make these structures? Even with all of our computers and knowledge we still can't explain all of these wonders. Now obviously our knowledge has accumulated over the years but as for pure intelligence I believe we are digressing. This is reflected in the Bible as well. We have recorded stories of men living to be hundreds of years old. The further you get from the garden the shorter average lifespans get. I don't see why our mental status wouldn't mimic our physical stature.
-
I like this guy...
I legitmately said that after reading those posts bro.
-
Take the Pyrimids, Stonhenge, the Nazca Lines, Even Noah's Ark. How do we explain how to make these structures? Even with all of our computers and knowledge we still can't explain all of these wonders. Now obviously our knowledge has accumulated over the years but as for pure intelligence I believe we are digressing. This is reflected in the Bible as well. We have recorded stories of men living to be hundreds of years old. The further you get from the garden the shorter average lifespans get. I don't see why our mental status wouldn't mimic our physical stature.
I think the decline in mental status is a problem associated with education, at least when speaking about recent times.
Many people, too, approach intelligence the wrong way. Intelligence isn't how fast you can process information, it's about creativity and innovation. There have been extremely innovative and creative human beings in the past 300 years. Kant is the first example that pops into my mind. Einstein is another. Bach, too.
The thing about intelligence (and this is my own personal opinion on the matter which I hold for a number of well thought out reasons) is that, no matter how good your brain is at processing information, it takes a good education to organize your mind and make it more efficient.
While we cannot explain how such structures were made, that's simply because we haven't thought of the method. But there's plenty of things we have thought of that they hadn't thought of. And that doesn't take away from the beauty of Bach's music or a St. Paul's Cathedral, which are results of the incredible creativity and intelligence of the artists, in terms of both devising methods (e.g., counterpoint, or new methods of construction) and going about the process of creating and designing something beautiful.
-
While we cannot explain how such structures were made,
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.recaption.com%2Fmemes%2FAncient-Aliens-Guy.jpg&hash=f008bd4e5856af424f92abb4aa4836232c1f56a9)
But really, there are other factors to consider. We're just assuming technology is limitless and the only reason we can't colonize other galaxies is because we haven't figured out how. Perhaps there is no how? Furthermore, what if extra-galactic space travel is not economically viable? We're condition to think, thanks to Star Treck, that at some point money will no longer be a thing because of technology, but that neglects Jesus' statement that the poor will always be among us. Finally, if intelligent life is rare, perhaps curiosity is even more rare. Strictly speaking of intellect there are many animals on earth that could be capable of self-aware sentience, but they aren't. Even more rare may be the human drive to discover stuff just because.
As a result of all these mitigating factors, it's totally feasible for even our immediate vicinity of the universe to be literally teeming with sentient life that will never discover each other.
-
wait, we can't explain how stonehenge and the pyramids were built? since when?
-
wait, we can't explain how stonehenge and the pyramids were built? since when?
I've heard this before, too. I think that it's still a mystery, from an engineering standpoint, how they were built using the technology available.
-
What's confusing about it exactly? Slaves, levers, and pulleys.
-
Legos. Lots of them.
-
I think it's unknown, still, although there are theories.
I found this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques) but haven't digested it all yet.
-
I don't understand what's so confusing about the pyramids and stonehenge, or what relevancy that even has to the topic of life on other planets in the first place. We can't explain Noah's Ark because we can't even prove it existed. That's not to say that it didn't but being that the thing was entirely made of wood it would have decayed completely decades ago. (Not to mention the logical impossibility of fitting that many animals on ANY ship that could be built at all but I'm not getting in to a biblical debate in a life on other planets thread)
-
I don't understand what's so confusing about the pyramids and stonehenge, or what relevancy that even has to the topic of life on other planets in the first place. We can't explain Noah's Ark because we can't even prove it existed. That's not to say that it didn't but being that the thing was entirely made of wood it would have decayed completely decades ago. (Not to mention the logical impossibility of fitting that many animals on ANY ship that could be built at all but I'm not getting in to a biblical debate in a life on other planets thread)
I think the regression was about the question of intelligent life. There are many animals on our planet which have the brain capacity for what we call intelligence, but lack the sociological conventions that allow for science, religion, etc.
I think that one would have a hard time arguing, from a Darwinian standpoint, that intelligence (as we speak of it in humans) is a necessary outcome of natural selection, which is directly relevant to questions of astrobiology.
-
I think that one would have a hard time arguing, from a Darwinian standpoint, that intelligence (as we speak of it in humans) is a necessary outcome of natural selection, which is directly relevant to questions of astrobiology.
What? How would you get that? Advancing intelligent turned us from a survival of the fittest species like everyone else in to a society where overcoming the elements is one of the last things our species needs to worry about, at least in our first world countries. We've come so far as a species we capture our former natural enemies and put them in cages so we can look at them and marvel at how "majestic" they are.
-
Yes, but are there more of us or more cockroaches and whose situation is more tenable?
-
cockroaches reproduce faster, take up less space, and require less natural resources to survive. What of that has to do with intelligence? Oh and also from an evolutionary standpoint when humans and cockroaches meet, who wins?
-
I think that one would have a hard time arguing, from a Darwinian standpoint, that intelligence (as we speak of it in humans) is a necessary outcome of natural selection, which is directly relevant to questions of astrobiology.
What? How would you get that? Advancing intelligent turned us from a survival of the fittest species like everyone else in to a society where overcoming the elements is one of the last things our species needs to worry about, at least in our first world countries. We've come so far as a species we capture our former natural enemies and put them in cages so we can look at them and marvel at how "majestic" they are.
Natural selection isn't "advancement," it's survival of the fittest. To argue that it is a necessary outcome of natural selection, you'd have to show how science would eventually be a necessary adaptation, and show that the environmental factors would be there for it to happen. Just because it seems "better," doesn't make it necessary, and the question at hand is whether it is necessary or contingent.
Consider language, for instance. Many animals have various ways of communicating, but their languages are nowhere near as sophisticated as ours. Well, why don't animals eventually "evolve" to the point of having language? They don't because their simple mode of communicating is efficient for their way of life and environmental factors.
I think if you look at human history, the development of theoretical science is in fact contingent on the Greeks. Sure, the Babylonians and Egyptians had ways of doing math and calculating things, but they didn't actually have theory--it's a Greek invention, and contingent on historical factors.
cockroaches reproduce faster, take up less space, and require less natural resources to survive. What of that has to do with intelligence? Oh and also from an evolutionary standpoint when humans and cockroaches meet, who wins?
Depends on the environment they have to adapt to.
I think the cockroach example is often used because in the event of a nuclear holocaust it's thought that cockroaches would survive. This is a perfect example of the less intelligent beating the more intelligent over a seemingly minor issue of adaptivity.
Also, we might all get wiped out by solar flares soon. Google it.
-
To say there is no life on other planets diminishes God, who can do what he wants at any time. Why wouldn't he make life on other planets?
As far as space travel imagine if you will started going in to spaces in 1776, and didn't stop how far would we be? Just some thing to think about.
-
My simple but all inclusive answer to this is based on the idea that we were never meant to die. If we were an imortal ageless being (sinless) eventually our planet would become overpopulated. We would need to expand our reach to other planets and over time the far corners of the universe. Which also makes sense because the universe is ever expanding. Basically I belive we were desigend to be interplanetary beings.
But no I don't think aliens are out there...
Sorry to quote myself but a rabbit trail got split off of this quote which buried the post at the end of page 1, any comments on the other life sustainable planets out there that may have been intended for our use from the beginning?
-
Take the Pyramids
From a purely architectural standpoint, the pyramids aren't that impressive. A solid pyramid is the easiest to build, and most stable, free-standing structure possible using giant blocks. You make a square then move in a bit and make another square, rinse and repeat.
Stonehenge
The building process itself wasn't that complicated. The impressive thing about Stonehenge is that the tribe(s) managed to stick with it until completion.
The Nazca Lines
Topsoil scraped away to reveal the white rock underneath. With enough time and a shovel you could make them.
How do we explain how to make these structures?
Like this ^^
Even with all of our computers and knowledge we still can't explain all of these wonders.
I just did.
-
Honestly, that's not even close to an explanation, (I'll give you the Pyrimids) but seriously, I don't think your seeing the complexity of these progects. Sense your big into reaserching your answers (this is a good thing :D) why don't you explain where the stones for Stonhenge came from? How the tribes knew how to place the stones perfectly in place to focus sound waves to the exact central point of the circle. Explain how the Nazca lines were built with exacting precision (were talking perfectly parallel lines over hundreds of yards long and very large shapes with perfect symetry) And how about a new one. Explain the freakish accuracy of the of the Myan calendar?
Theses are still just a few examples. And when you actually try to Fully explain how They did It you will realize how truly astonishing They really are.
I'm not saying you have to agree with my point or perspective but to try and slap down answers to these questions is kind of ridiculous.
-
Also, we might all get wiped out by solar flares soon. Google it.
I don't want to derail the thread, but this interests me (I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories). I googled quite a bit, but can't find any imminent danger other than our power shutting down.
While we cannot explain how such structures were made,
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.recaption.com%2Fmemes%2FAncient-Aliens-Guy.jpg&hash=f008bd4e5856af424f92abb4aa4836232c1f56a9)
And I'm pretty sure it has something to do with The Doctor...
-
but can't find any imminent danger...
Whew. I was worried something disastrous would result like our technological generation being reverted to the Stone Age.
...other than our power shutting down.
Oh. Snap.
And in order to keep the thread on topic, I see no issue with human ingenuity being solely responsible for the previously mentioned marvels of the ancient world. People have always been creative, industrious, and intelligent. Besides, the microchip is more impressive than the Pyramids, Stonehenge, the Parthenon, etc. combined.
-
The ironic thing is, this is already off topic ;D
I agree that humans were souly responsible for the ancient (and modern) wonders. And I believe that the universe was intended for our exploration and habitation. Because of that, I don't think we will find other (intelligent) life out there. Realistically, I'm expecting to find an abundance of microscopic life, but nothing more.
-
Explain the freakish accuracy of the of the Mayan calendar?
Same way the Babylonians did it...
Explain how the Nazca lines were built with exacting precision (were talking perfectly parallel lines over hundreds of yards long and very large shapes with perfect symmetry) And how about a new one. Explain the freakish accuracy of the of the Myan calendar?
The same way we'd do it today, they used (albeit much more primitive) survey equipment (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1V-BIdlc9YEC&pg=PA6&dq=joe+nickell+nazca+lines&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false) (bottom of page 11).
-
I'm actually studying ancient astronomy right now. It was incredibly advanced back then. Some of the knowledge was lost during the dark ages. After the 17th century, it started getting better than the ancients.
Actually, if someone wanted to go about trying to answer this question mathematically, I wonder if one could run an analysis using fractal geometry. Granted, we'd need a pretty big perspective to do something like that.
Using fractal geometry, one can determine from the fractal patterns of a single tree the layout of an entire rainforest.
Here's a clip from a documentary that talks about it:
How Fractal Patterns Perpetuate Through a Tree, and then a Forest - Bonzai Permaculture - (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApJcmlqYrEk#ws)