There is No Home in the Universe but Earth

[TNHarley]

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

That's right! Kill every swingin' dick and jane of them, and all their livestock.

It would seem TNHarley's gettin' a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin'.

I would have ignored my point, too

Liar. I applaud God's justice. You hate justice.

Nope. Thats what you did. You are lying and your god hates liars.

Lying about what, you silly ass?

That you ignored my point.
You dont forum very well, do you?
Lets recap what happened :
You said Supporters of infanticide are not Christians. Yeah. I said it.
I then posted a biblical verse about god ordering the death of infants. Which, BTW, makes your statement look incredibly foolish.
You then ignore it, and then lie about ignoring it.
Do you understand now?

 

[Stryder50]

The universe is a harsh, dangerous and sterile place.

Thank God we have our little jewel.

And just how much of the universe have you explored to make such a statement?

Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.

People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".

However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?

Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.

Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.

May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.

Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.



View attachment 474149

That book sounds intriguing and the premise is plausible.
One of many questions would be just how much all the factors are essential for complex life to develop? For example, an Earth like planet with a more stable history and one or more of those factors not present could also develop complex life but might do so in shorter time-span and with less fragile prospects.
How much did an impact event, the creation of such a large moon, and resulting plate tectonics real factor in fostering life, especially complex life versus having made what we have here even more rare compared to tamer conditions in other star systems and on other planets. ???

Some speculations are that Mars may have been more habitable and supportive of life in it's past, when it appears to have had liquid oceans and may have still retained a thicker atmosphere and warmer surface temperatures.

I've a couple of interesting and related articles to present, but will do so in another post following this.

Mars may very well have developed the same as earth but without the iron core to produce the magnetic field the solar radiation stripped away everything.

The collision with Theta was a very happenstance event that very well may be the difference between earth being sterile like Mars or harboring life. How many other earth like planets in the universe are sterile because they never had a happenstance event like that?

Lots of things happen that led to the creation of life on earth. It is not a common place event like the Trekkers think.

Mars might have retained hydrosphere long enough for life to have started, rudimentary biosphere before it was stripped away. We'll learn more as we explore more.

The Theta/Theia impact to Earth wasn't all that happenstance. There was a lot of impacting on all the planets when the Solar System was forming and evidence suggests a very massive object "intruded" through this system early on. All the planets have obits that are inclined a bit to the Solar ecliptic (equatorial band or rotational/angular momentum), and all have rotational axial tilts. In theory all should revolve about the same plane and have perpendicular rotation, unless some force/event altered such.

In the case of Venus, once posited to be a near twin of Earth, while it has the same orbital/revolution path as the other planets; "counter-clockwise" as seen from the North Star; it spins in the opposite; clock-wise direction. Albeit rather slowly, but the "Occam's Razor" cause would be either a major impact event or a close passage of a very massive other body/planet that caused Venus to flip about 180 degrees on it's rotational axis. The energy involved in such an event might be the major explanation for that thick cloud covering and intense heat.

Uranus points one of it's rotational axis poles towards the Sun (tilt of about 87 degrees) while rolling along on it's equator as it orbits about the Sun.

Yes, lots of things/factors can lead to creation of life, on Earth and elsewhere. Open question is if all the things/factors that happened to Earth were essential, or were some "extras" that might not have happened to other worlds around other Stars.

The Moon/Luna is one that might have more to do with some of the diversity of life than being an essential and required component. The tidal effects on the oceans certainly resulted in some interesting variations of aquatic life, and rumor has it that because of this unique factor, geoduck is a popular export from here to the gourmet tables of the wealthy on Rigel-7 and Sirius-4.

 

[Ringtone]

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

That's right! Kill every swingin' dick and jane of them, and all their livestock.

It would seem TNHarley's gettin' a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin'.

I would have ignored my point, too

Liar. I applaud God's justice. You hate justice.

Nope. Thats what you did. You are lying and your god hates liars.

Lying about what, you silly ass?

That you ignored my point.
You dont forum very well, do you?
Lets recap what happened :
You said Supporters of infanticide are not Christians. Yeah. I said it.
I then posted a biblical verse about god ordering the death of infants. Which, BTW, makes your statement look incredibly foolish.
You then ignore it, and then lie about ignoring it.
Do you understand now?

The only folks claiming to have the authority of God to give and take life are YOU and your fellow baby murders. You're the fools.

 

[TNHarley]

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

That's right! Kill every swingin' dick and jane of them, and all their livestock.

It would seem TNHarley's gettin' a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin'.

I would have ignored my point, too

Liar. I applaud God's justice. You hate justice.

Nope. Thats what you did. You are lying and your god hates liars.

Lying about what, you silly ass?

That you ignored my point.
You dont forum very well, do you?
Lets recap what happened :
You said Supporters of infanticide are not Christians. Yeah. I said it.
I then posted a biblical verse about god ordering the death of infants. Which, BTW, makes your statement look incredibly foolish.
You then ignore it, and then lie about ignoring it.
Do you understand now?

The only folks claiming to have the authority of God to give and take life are YOU and your fellow baby murders. You're the fools.

I have never murdered a baby. But your god has.
Your disingenuous outrage is noted.

 

[Flash]

The universe is a harsh, dangerous and sterile place.

Thank God we have our little jewel.

And just how much of the universe have you explored to make such a statement?

Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.

People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".

However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?

Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.

Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.

May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.

Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.



View attachment 474149

That book sounds intriguing and the premise is plausible.
One of many questions would be just how much all the factors are essential for complex life to develop? For example, an Earth like planet with a more stable history and one or more of those factors not present could also develop complex life but might do so in shorter time-span and with less fragile prospects.
How much did an impact event, the creation of such a large moon, and resulting plate tectonics real factor in fostering life, especially complex life versus having made what we have here even more rare compared to tamer conditions in other star systems and on other planets. ???

Some speculations are that Mars may have been more habitable and supportive of life in it's past, when it appears to have had liquid oceans and may have still retained a thicker atmosphere and warmer surface temperatures.

I've a couple of interesting and related articles to present, but will do so in another post following this.

Mars may very well have developed the same as earth but without the iron core to produce the magnetic field the solar radiation stripped away everything.

The collision with Theta was a very happenstance event that very well may be the difference between earth being sterile like Mars or harboring life. How many other earth like planets in the universe are sterile because they never had a happenstance event like that?

Lots of things happen that led to the creation of life on earth. It is not a common place event like the Trekkers think.

Mars might have retained hydrosphere long enough for life to have started, rudimentary biosphere before it was stripped away. We'll learn more as we explore more.

The Theta/Theia impact to Earth wasn't all that happenstance. There was a lot of impacting on all the planets when the Solar System was forming and evidence suggests a very massive object "intruded" through this system early on. All the planets have obits that are inclined a bit to the Solar ecliptic (equatorial band or rotational/angular momentum), and all have rotational axial tilts. In theory all should revolve about the same plane and have perpendicular rotation, unless some force/event altered such.

In the case of Venus, once posited to be a near twin of Earth, while it has the same orbital/revolution path as the other planets; "counter-clockwise" as seen from the North Star; it spins in the opposite; clock-wise direction. Albeit rather slowly, but the "Occam's Razor" cause would be either a major impact event or a close passage of a very massive other body/planet that caused Venus to flip about 180 degrees on it's rotational axis. The energy involved in such an event might be the major explanation for that thick cloud covering and intense heat.

Uranus points one of it's rotational axis poles towards the Sun (tilt of about 87 degrees) while rolling along on it's equator as it orbits about the Sun.

Yes, lots of things/factors can lead to creation of life, on Earth and elsewhere. Open question is if all the things/factors that happened to Earth were essential, or were some "extras" that might not have happened to other worlds around other Stars.

The Moon/Luna is one that might have more to do with some of the diversity of life than being an essential and required component. The tidal effects on the oceans certainly resulted in some interesting variations of aquatic life, and rumor has it that because of this unique factor, geoduck is a popular export from here to the gourmet tables of the wealthy on Rigel-7 and Sirius-4.

The Theta collision was nothing new because like you said things like that was going on a lot. However, the size and the way it hit to create the moon and create plate tectonics and merge the iron cores all contributed to the development of life on earth.

A smaller body may not have done it. A larger one may have created something different. The angle of impact kept both bodies from creating a new asteroid belt.

Lot of good luck there for us in that collision.

 

[Stryder50]

The universe is a harsh, dangerous and sterile place.

Thank God we have our little jewel.

And just how much of the universe have you explored to make such a statement?

Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.

People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".

However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?

Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.

Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.

May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.

Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.



View attachment 474149

That book sounds intriguing and the premise is plausible.
One of many questions would be just how much all the factors are essential for complex life to develop? For example, an Earth like planet with a more stable history and one or more of those factors not present could also develop complex life but might do so in shorter time-span and with less fragile prospects.
How much did an impact event, the creation of such a large moon, and resulting plate tectonics real factor in fostering life, especially complex life versus having made what we have here even more rare compared to tamer conditions in other star systems and on other planets. ???

Some speculations are that Mars may have been more habitable and supportive of life in it's past, when it appears to have had liquid oceans and may have still retained a thicker atmosphere and warmer surface temperatures.

I've a couple of interesting and related articles to present, but will do so in another post following this.

Mars may very well have developed the same as earth but without the iron core to produce the magnetic field the solar radiation stripped away everything.

The collision with Theta was a very happenstance event that very well may be the difference between earth being sterile like Mars or harboring life. How many other earth like planets in the universe are sterile because they never had a happenstance event like that?

Lots of things happen that led to the creation of life on earth. It is not a common place event like the Trekkers think.

Mars might have retained hydrosphere long enough for life to have started, rudimentary biosphere before it was stripped away. We'll learn more as we explore more.

The Theta/Theia impact to Earth wasn't all that happenstance. There was a lot of impacting on all the planets when the Solar System was forming and evidence suggests a very massive object "intruded" through this system early on. All the planets have obits that are inclined a bit to the Solar ecliptic (equatorial band or rotational/angular momentum), and all have rotational axial tilts. In theory all should revolve about the same plane and have perpendicular rotation, unless some force/event altered such.

In the case of Venus, once posited to be a near twin of Earth, while it has the same orbital/revolution path as the other planets; "counter-clockwise" as seen from the North Star; it spins in the opposite; clock-wise direction. Albeit rather slowly, but the "Occam's Razor" cause would be either a major impact event or a close passage of a very massive other body/planet that caused Venus to flip about 180 degrees on it's rotational axis. The energy involved in such an event might be the major explanation for that thick cloud covering and intense heat.

Uranus points one of it's rotational axis poles towards the Sun (tilt of about 87 degrees) while rolling along on it's equator as it orbits about the Sun.

Yes, lots of things/factors can lead to creation of life, on Earth and elsewhere. Open question is if all the things/factors that happened to Earth were essential, or were some "extras" that might not have happened to other worlds around other Stars.

The Moon/Luna is one that might have more to do with some of the diversity of life than being an essential and required component. The tidal effects on the oceans certainly resulted in some interesting variations of aquatic life, and rumor has it that because of this unique factor, geoduck is a popular export from here to the gourmet tables of the wealthy on Rigel-7 and Sirius-4.

The Theta collision was nothing new because like you said things like that was going on a lot. However, the size and the way it hit to create the moon and create plate tectonics and merge the iron cores all contributed to the development of life on earth.

A smaller body may not have done it. A larger one may have created something different. The angle of impact kept both bodies from creating a new asteroid belt.

Lot of good luck there for us in that collision.

"Contributed" yes, but were such essential?
This may remain an open item for contention until some future time when we've got data from other worlds around other stars.
Earth may not be the Metric.

 

[Ringtone]

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

That's right! Kill every swingin' dick and jane of them, and all their livestock.

It would seem TNHarley's gettin' a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin'.

I would have ignored my point, too

Liar. I applaud God's justice. You hate justice.

Nope. Thats what you did. You are lying and your god hates liars.

Lying about what, you silly ass?

That you ignored my point.
You dont forum very well, do you?
Lets recap what happened :
You said Supporters of infanticide are not Christians. Yeah. I said it.
I then posted a biblical verse about god ordering the death of infants. Which, BTW, makes your statement look incredibly foolish.
You then ignore it, and then lie about ignoring it.
Do you understand now?

The only folks claiming to have the authority of God to give and take life are YOU and your fellow baby murders. You're the fools.

I have never murdered a baby. But your god has.
Your disingenuous outrage is noted.

Your support of infanticide is noted as well as your mindless notion that the giver of life can murder.

 

[TNHarley]

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

That's right! Kill every swingin' dick and jane of them, and all their livestock.

It would seem TNHarley's gettin' a weepy, snot-stained hanky feelin'.

I would have ignored my point, too

Liar. I applaud God's justice. You hate justice.

Nope. Thats what you did. You are lying and your god hates liars.

Lying about what, you silly ass?

That you ignored my point.
You dont forum very well, do you?
Lets recap what happened :
You said Supporters of infanticide are not Christians. Yeah. I said it.
I then posted a biblical verse about god ordering the death of infants. Which, BTW, makes your statement look incredibly foolish.
You then ignore it, and then lie about ignoring it.
Do you understand now?

The only folks claiming to have the authority of God to give and take life are YOU and your fellow baby murders. You're the fools.

I have never murdered a baby. But your god has.
Your disingenuous outrage is noted.

Your support of infanticide is noted as well as your mindless notion that the giver of life can murder.

He is more like Charles Manson than a murderer. He directs his lemmings to do it for him.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For all intents and purposes, we would do well to think of this planet as unique and make the best of it.

We can still do that and search for life elsewhere.

 

[Paulie]

In the end we have to accept that God created ONLY the earth for Mankind.

There is no other world in the solar system or the universe

Mars.

It will take Man Made Terraforming to get Mars livable for humans. But out in our universe there has to be another planet 3rd from the sun, Oxygen/Nitrogen atmosphere, and plenty of water.. The odds say so...

If it existed, you could never get there.
At the speed of light, it would take you 45 minutes to get to Jupiter (from the sun). 5 hours to get to pluto (I think). 4 1/2 years to the nearest star. You can never get to the speed of light, and if you could, you'd have to accelerate and de-accelerate. It takes INFINITE energy to get a mass to the speed of light, meaning more energy than is contained in the universe.

All planets, that we know of, are MUCH more dangerous to humans than the vacuum of space.

There is no other home for Man

Have you ever asked yourself how a vacuum (space, supposedly) can exist next to the non-vacuum of earth? A vacuum needs to be enclosed, otherwise it’s not a vacuum.

 

[Blues Man]

The universe is a harsh, dangerous and sterile place.

Thank God we have our little jewel.

And just how much of the universe have you explored to make such a statement?

Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.

People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".

However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?

Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.

Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.

May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.

Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.



View attachment 474149

You do realize that everything astronomers show us is is the barest fraction of the entire universe and that the light that is bringing astronomers that information can be millions or billions of year old right?

There are an estimated 10 to the 24th power stars in the universe so to say that none of them have planets capable of supporting life as we know it or otherwise is a bold claim indeed.

Just because there are a lot of stars don't mean there is any more life. Chemistry is common all over the universe but turning chemistry into biology is a whole new ball game.

If the universe is finite there will be unique things in it. Life on earth may be unique.

The problem we have assessing thing likes this is that we have only data point for life. Until we get another data pint we can't make an intelligent assumption. Maybe one of these days we will get another data point but we are not there yet.

We can't even create life in the laboratory. If life was so easy to be created elsewhere you would think that by now our scientists would have been able to create it in a test tube, wouldn't you?

There is a lot more to turning chemistry into biology than a rock planet, a Goldilocks zone and a little water.

I would love to know that the universe is teaming with life. Hell, I would love to be able to screw a Green Orion Slave Girl like Cpt Kirk did but alas there is no proof they exist.

View attachment 474157

And it doesn't mean there isn't.

Saying that you are 100% certain that no other solar system in the entire universe is capable of harboring life is ridiculous.

I never said I am 100% certain there is no other life in the universe.

I said the only proof we have is that there is life on earth and when we observed the universe everything that we see seems to be hostile and sterile.

It is true that we don't see everything.

The science that we know now says that there has to be some very unique things to have have happen to create life elsewhere. So unique that we can't even reproduce it in a Lab.

Right now science has said there is only life on earth. The only thing that says life is elsewhere is 100 years of Science Fiction brainwashing and some mythical faith.

That may change in the future but that is all we have now.

Science also allows for what it doesn't know.

And no serious scientist would ever say that there is no other life but ours in the universe especially since we actually know that the vastness of the universe prevents us from ever knowing the condition of every planet and whether or not those planets are capable of harboring life as we know it or otherwise.

Like I said there are an estimated 1000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe so we really don't know anything about all those possible solar systems.

For all you, I and any scientist knows all 1000000000000000000000000 of the stars in the universe have sterile solar systems.

A scientist that says there is other life is talking out their ass. They do not know.

You cannot make a valid statistical analysis with only one data point. It is unscientific to do that.

If a scientist starts talking about the certainty of life out there then they are like the one prisoner in the Cool Worlds analogy that says it is easy because he hit the combination but ignores the fact that none of the other million prisoners hit the right combination.

Statistics will not turn chemistry into biology. It takes a very precise set of happenstance events that may or may have been repeated elsewhere in the universe.

The only valid thing any scientist or anybody else can say is that we do not know there is life elsewhere. Anything else is nothing more than speculation, not science.

Maybe one of these days we will get another data point and that will change everything. Then we can start making valid statistical probabilities. Until then we have nothing. Nada. Zilch.

The other thing is that given the laws of physics we will probably never get out of our solar system. We will probably never know. We will probably die out as a species before we ever get any real proof. Star trekking across the universe may be popular in fiction but we have no idea how to do it.

The best we can hope for is for the Mars probe to come back with some definitive proof that microbial life once existed on Mars.

Even if we create life in a test tube then that is no proof that the same conditions existed elsewhere for life to have been started on another planet.

exactly my point THEY DON'T KNOW.

So how do you know that our planet is the only one with life ?

The answer is you don't know. Nobody knows. So at least be honest enough to say that.

Did you read what I had written previously? The only thing I have been saying is that we have no idea if life exist outside our planet because we only have one data point.

However, there are lots of people that are absolutely convinced life exist elsewhere because they speculate on invalid statistical probabilities and that is unscientific.

Given the size of the universe it is not only possible but probable that life besides us exists.

I don't think that our little insignificant planet orbiting a run of the mill yellow star in Milky Way Galaxy is the only place that life as we know it or don't know it exists and it has nothing to do with sci fi books or movies but rather a statistical probability given the astronomical (no pun intended) numbers.

See you are doing it again.

You are making an assumption based upon nothing.

Have you ever taken a college course in Statistics? If you did you would know that you can never base a probability on one data point.

Your assumption is based upon how you feel, not on science.

I would love to believe in galactic empires and alien worlds teaming with life but to do so would go against the science that says as far as we can see and for what we know right now earth is the only place with life and the rest of the universe looks to be pretty damn hostile.

By the way, our sun is not a "run of the mill" star. It is a Yellow Dwarf and only about 7% of the stars in our galaxy are like it. The run of the mill stars would be the Red Dwarfs (about 70%) that are much cooler and are not stable. Life would have a hellva time getting established on a planet orbiting a Red Dwarf because of the variability in temperature.

I'm not basing it on one data point.

By saying that the rest of the universe is sterile, you are using one data point.

And probability is part of statistics in case you didn't know that.

The probability in a system as vast as the universe is that at least some other planets harbor life either as we know it or as we don't know it.

You'll notice I'm not saying there is but that the probability exists.

Actually I am not.

We have seven other planets that are hostlie to life just in back yard.

All this exoplanet research we have been doing for the last few years have not produce any earth like planets but a whole lot of monstrosities that would kill life pretty damn quick.

Everywhere we look it seems to be hostile to life.

Maybe we will refine our searches one day but right now we have nothing.

Our solar system is still a single point when once considers there are possible 1000000000000000000000000 solar systems in the universe

And right now we have nothing because the only solar system we have any real knowledge of is ours.

You just don't seem to grasp the size of the universe.

 

[Blues Man]

The universe is a harsh, dangerous and sterile place.

Thank God we have our little jewel.

And just how much of the universe have you explored to make such a statement?

Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.

People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".

However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?

Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.

Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.

May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.

Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.



View attachment 474149

You do realize that everything astronomers show us is is the barest fraction of the entire universe and that the light that is bringing astronomers that information can be millions or billions of year old right?

There are an estimated 10 to the 24th power stars in the universe so to say that none of them have planets capable of supporting life as we know it or otherwise is a bold claim indeed.

Just because there are a lot of stars don't mean there is any more life. Chemistry is common all over the universe but turning chemistry into biology is a whole new ball game.

If the universe is finite there will be unique things in it. Life on earth may be unique.

The problem we have assessing thing likes this is that we have only data point for life. Until we get another data pint we can't make an intelligent assumption. Maybe one of these days we will get another data point but we are not there yet.

We can't even create life in the laboratory. If life was so easy to be created elsewhere you would think that by now our scientists would have been able to create it in a test tube, wouldn't you?

There is a lot more to turning chemistry into biology than a rock planet, a Goldilocks zone and a little water.

I would love to know that the universe is teaming with life. Hell, I would love to be able to screw a Green Orion Slave Girl like Cpt Kirk did but alas there is no proof they exist.

View attachment 474157

And it doesn't mean there isn't.

Saying that you are 100% certain that no other solar system in the entire universe is capable of harboring life is ridiculous.

I never said I am 100% certain there is no other life in the universe.

I said the only proof we have is that there is life on earth and when we observed the universe everything that we see seems to be hostile and sterile.

It is true that we don't see everything.

The science that we know now says that there has to be some very unique things to have have happen to create life elsewhere. So unique that we can't even reproduce it in a Lab.

Right now science has said there is only life on earth. The only thing that says life is elsewhere is 100 years of Science Fiction brainwashing and some mythical faith.

That may change in the future but that is all we have now.

Science also allows for what it doesn't know.

And no serious scientist would ever say that there is no other life but ours in the universe especially since we actually know that the vastness of the universe prevents us from ever knowing the condition of every planet and whether or not those planets are capable of harboring life as we know it or otherwise.

Like I said there are an estimated 1000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe so we really don't know anything about all those possible solar systems.

For all you, I and any scientist knows all 1000000000000000000000000 of the stars in the universe have sterile solar systems.

A scientist that says there is other life is talking out their ass. They do not know.

You cannot make a valid statistical analysis with only one data point. It is unscientific to do that.

If a scientist starts talking about the certainty of life out there then they are like the one prisoner in the Cool Worlds analogy that says it is easy because he hit the combination but ignores the fact that none of the other million prisoners hit the right combination.

Statistics will not turn chemistry into biology. It takes a very precise set of happenstance events that may or may have been repeated elsewhere in the universe.

The only valid thing any scientist or anybody else can say is that we do not know there is life elsewhere. Anything else is nothing more than speculation, not science.

Maybe one of these days we will get another data point and that will change everything. Then we can start making valid statistical probabilities. Until then we have nothing. Nada. Zilch.

The other thing is that given the laws of physics we will probably never get out of our solar system. We will probably never know. We will probably die out as a species before we ever get any real proof. Star trekking across the universe may be popular in fiction but we have no idea how to do it.

The best we can hope for is for the Mars probe to come back with some definitive proof that microbial life once existed on Mars.

Even if we create life in a test tube then that is no proof that the same conditions existed elsewhere for life to have been started on another planet.

exactly my point THEY DON'T KNOW.

So how do you know that our planet is the only one with life ?

The answer is you don't know. Nobody knows. So at least be honest enough to say that.

Did you read what I had written previously? The only thing I have been saying is that we have no idea if life exist outside our planet because we only have one data point.

However, there are lots of people that are absolutely convinced life exist elsewhere because they speculate on invalid statistical probabilities and that is unscientific.

Given the size of the universe it is not only possible but probable that life besides us exists.

I don't think that our little insignificant planet orbiting a run of the mill yellow star in Milky Way Galaxy is the only place that life as we know it or don't know it exists and it has nothing to do with sci fi books or movies but rather a statistical probability given the astronomical (no pun intended) numbers.

See you are doing it again.

You are making an assumption based upon nothing.

Have you ever taken a college course in Statistics? If you did you would know that you can never base a probability on one data point.

Your assumption is based upon how you feel, not on science.

I would love to believe in galactic empires and alien worlds teaming with life but to do so would go against the science that says as far as we can see and for what we know right now earth is the only place with life and the rest of the universe looks to be pretty damn hostile.

By the way, our sun is not a "run of the mill" star. It is a Yellow Dwarf and only about 7% of the stars in our galaxy are like it. The run of the mill stars would be the Red Dwarfs (about 70%) that are much cooler and are not stable. Life would have a hellva time getting established on a planet orbiting a Red Dwarf because of the variability in temperature.

I'm not basing it on one data point.

By saying that the rest of the universe is sterile, you are using one data point.

And probability is part of statistics in case you didn't know that.

The probability in a system as vast as the universe is that at least some other planets harbor life either as we know it or as we don't know it.

You'll notice I'm not saying there is but that the probability exists.

There's no chance in hell that mere chemistry can form anything remotely akin to a living organism.

abiogenesis is just as viable a theory as the god theory

 

[harmonica]

..someone said we have to accept that god made Earth,etc blah blah blah ......well, one problem with that---you can't prove there is a god

 

[Flash]

..someone said we have to accept that god made Earth,etc blah blah blah ......well, one problem with that---you can't prove there is a god

The problem with not believing in Intelligent Design is that the only alternative is believing that the universe created itself out of nothing. As anyone that understands the Laws of Physics will tell you that dog don't hunt.

 

[Blues Man]

..someone said we have to accept that god made Earth,etc blah blah blah ......well, one problem with that---you can't prove there is a god

The problem with not believing in Intelligent Design is that the only alternative is believing that the universe created itself out of nothing. As anyone that understands the Laws of Physics will tell you that dog don't hunt.

Inventing a god that created the universe is just as lame a dog.

 

[Flash]

..someone said we have to accept that god made Earth,etc blah blah blah ......well, one problem with that---you can't prove there is a god

The problem with not believing in Intelligent Design is that the only alternative is believing that the universe created itself out of nothing. As anyone that understands the Laws of Physics will tell you that dog don't hunt.

Inventing a god that created the universe is just as lame a dog.

If you believe that the universe created itself out of nothing then you believe in magic.

 

[Blues Man]

..someone said we have to accept that god made Earth,etc blah blah blah ......well, one problem with that---you can't prove there is a god

The problem with not believing in Intelligent Design is that the only alternative is believing that the universe created itself out of nothing. As anyone that understands the Laws of Physics will tell you that dog don't hunt.

Inventing a god that created the universe is just as lame a dog.

If you believe that the universe created itself out of nothing then you believe in magic.

The Big Bang is just a theory
God is just a theory.

We don't really know how the universe came into existence. I have no problem admitting that.

In fact I'm of the mind that we might be utterly incapable of comprehending how the universe came to be just like my dogs are utterly incapable of comprehending prime numbers

 

[Flash]

..someone said we have to accept that god made Earth,etc blah blah blah ......well, one problem with that---you can't prove there is a god

The problem with not believing in Intelligent Design is that the only alternative is believing that the universe created itself out of nothing. As anyone that understands the Laws of Physics will tell you that dog don't hunt.

Inventing a god that created the universe is just as lame a dog.

If you believe that the universe created itself out of nothing then you believe in magic.

The Big Bang is just a theory
God is just a theory.

We don't really know how the universe came into existence. I have no problem admitting that.

In fact I'm of the mind that we might be utterly incapable of comprehending how the universe came to be just like my dogs are utterly incapable of comprehending prime numbers

I agree with what you said.

To me believing in God is admitting that you can't comprehend existence and accepting that there must be something much bigger out there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

abiogenesis is just as viable a theory as the god theory

Abiogenesis isn't even a theory. It's a fact. The Theory of Abiogensis, which attempts to explain how abiogenesis works, is a theory. Similarly, star formation is a fact, and the Theory of Star Formation attempts to explain how star formation works.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Big Bang is just a theory

The Big Bang theory, in its most strict sense, is so well supported that it is safely considered to be true. In its strict sense, it only says that there was a period of rapid expansion in the early universe. We have taken a picture of it.

Not trying to pester, just adding clarity.