james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,805
- 170
That's no argument for aliens or life elsewhere. It's YOUR circular reasoning that shows your mind is deteriorating faster than anyone else here.
Humans May Be the Only Intelligent Life in the Universe, If Evolution Has Anything to Say.
- Thread starter Mindful
- Start date
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 110,236
- 99,369
- 3,645
It's not meant to be. Duh. Your grasp of logic is really horrible, James.
james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,805
- 170
Then listen to this you know nothings. THERE ARE NO FARKIN' ALIENS. We are the only life in the universe because God didn't create any other life. Evolution is a fairy tale lmao you SAF/POS mothers.
Feeding Crows
Gold Member
- Jun 12, 2021
- 4,022
- 862
- 138
I don't understand the response.
Feeding Crows
Gold Member
- Jun 12, 2021
- 4,022
- 862
- 138
The statement from JB is a statement from someone who believes dinosaurs and men lived together. 'nuf said.
Feeding Crows
Gold Member
- Jun 12, 2021
- 4,022
- 862
- 138
And had little humosaur babies...
james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,805
- 170
Lol, are you an UFO believer? Where is YOUR evidence?
I have hard evidence for dinosaurs and humans living together.
"
Humans & Dinosaurs Together?
Biblical creationists believe that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time because God said that he created man and land animals on day six. There is historical evidence of dinosaurs and man living together, such as the petroglyph in Natural Bridges, Utah, legends and stories of dragons in Europe, and the dragon motif in China. But one striking artifact in Asia is the bas-relief picture of a dinosaur in the ruins of Angkor outside of Siem Reap, Cambodia.
Soft Tissue Found in Dinosaurs
Dr. Mary Schweitzer and her team caught the world’s attention with a Science paper in 2005 that described intact blood vessels and red blood cells in a T. rex bone. But in fact, secular scientists have been reporting soft tissue in dinosaurs for decades in sometimes seldom-read technical literature."
Feeding Crows
Gold Member
- Jun 12, 2021
- 4,022
- 862
- 138
yep, that's what i'm talkin 'bout...
ChemEngineer
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2019
- 7,086
- 7,185
- 1,940
The Conversation website is supposed to be intellectual, but the article contains this nonsense:
"Intelligence seems to depend on a chain of improbable events. But given the vast number of planets, then like an infinite number of monkeys pounding on an infinite number of typewriters to write Hamlet, it's bound to evolve somewhere. The improbable result was us."
1. There is NOT "an infinite number of monkeys."
2. There is NOT "an infinite number of typewriters."
3. Monkeys in any number would crap on, damage and destroy typewriters and never
replace paper or ribbons.
4. Given the approximately 100 different characters including numbers, punctuation, and case, Richard Dawkins' definition of "impossible," viz., 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power, is overwhelmed by the demand to type a mere 20 correct characters. 100 to the 20th is 10 to the 40th. "Impossible."
5. 10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. 1 try to find the unique grain of sand would be, how do you say, "IMPOSSBLE".
You just get 1 try for the sand example. That is the definition of "1 try in x number."
"Intelligence seems to depend on a chain of improbable events. But given the vast number of planets, then like an infinite number of monkeys pounding on an infinite number of typewriters to write Hamlet, it's bound to evolve somewhere. The improbable result was us."
1. There is NOT "an infinite number of monkeys."
2. There is NOT "an infinite number of typewriters."
3. Monkeys in any number would crap on, damage and destroy typewriters and never
replace paper or ribbons.
4. Given the approximately 100 different characters including numbers, punctuation, and case, Richard Dawkins' definition of "impossible," viz., 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power, is overwhelmed by the demand to type a mere 20 correct characters. 100 to the 20th is 10 to the 40th. "Impossible."
5. 10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. 1 try to find the unique grain of sand would be, how do you say, "IMPOSSBLE".
You just get 1 try for the sand example. That is the definition of "1 try in x number."
The assumptions being made is that throughout the universe the laws and constants of physics, biology, and other sciences are the same but is that really true? Some scientists believe they are but others are not so sure. If the rules of the game vary, then who can say what is possible and impossible.We may be utterly alone in the universe.
Humans May Be the Only Intelligent Life in the Universe, If Evolution Has Anything to Say
We may be utterly alone in the universe.www.livescience.com
Brick Gold
Gold Member
- Jan 30, 2022
- 1,234
- 362
- 208
You never know. Once we've physically observed enough planets to say for sure then we can form a solid theory. Everything before then is a guessing game. Arguments on both sides can be convincing.We may be utterly alone in the universe.
Humans May Be the Only Intelligent Life in the Universe, If Evolution Has Anything to Say
We may be utterly alone in the universe.
Man of Ethics
Gold Member
- Feb 28, 2021
- 4,682
- 2,136
- 248
And I am very lonely on this Earth as well.
- Banned
- #133
Statistics doesn't turn chemistry into biology.
There are a lot of galaxies, stars and planets out there. Literally an astronomical number of all three. However, that is no guarantee life exist elsewhere.
Whenever we look into the sky we see things that look to be hostile to life as we know it. We can't produce life in a lab so that is strong proof that the process is extremely complex. The more complex something is the less chance it has of happening.
We only have one data point on life in the universe. Until we get another data point anything we say about it is speculative.
ChemEngineer
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2019
- 7,086
- 7,185
- 1,940
1. Reality is NOT a "game."
2. Some scientists are crazy.
3. If physical constants were different, there's no matter, nothing.
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
They got this part right for sure:
Our evolutionary history shows that many key adaptations — not just intelligence, but complex animals, complex cells, photosynthesis, and life itself — were unique, one-off events, and therefore highly improbable. Our evolution may have been like winning the lottery … only far less likely.
First of all that evolution is a study if history. No experiment can prove that evolution happened without any kind of guidance. No experiment can ever prove that anything in the past happened. Which is why science and history are two different fields of study.
Secondly, yes it is incredibly unlikely that our evolution happened as the most current theory is described to us. Not impossible, but only in the philosophical sense that nothing is impossible.
Thirdly that the one factor that could render the near impossible workable - namely intelligent design - is for some reason a taboo subject among the supposed "scientists" who study evolutionary history. Clearly approaching the truth is not their main agenda.
Our evolutionary history shows that many key adaptations — not just intelligence, but complex animals, complex cells, photosynthesis, and life itself — were unique, one-off events, and therefore highly improbable. Our evolution may have been like winning the lottery … only far less likely.
First of all that evolution is a study if history. No experiment can prove that evolution happened without any kind of guidance. No experiment can ever prove that anything in the past happened. Which is why science and history are two different fields of study.
Secondly, yes it is incredibly unlikely that our evolution happened as the most current theory is described to us. Not impossible, but only in the philosophical sense that nothing is impossible.
Thirdly that the one factor that could render the near impossible workable - namely intelligent design - is for some reason a taboo subject among the supposed "scientists" who study evolutionary history. Clearly approaching the truth is not their main agenda.
You managed to get so much wrong. Evolutionary biology is the study of change in populations over time.
Your most basic presumptions and prejudices about science are wrong. Science doesn't "prove". Science points to theoretical possibilities, disproves things and makes predictions. Science deals in evidence. Evolution has overwhelming evidence.. That evidence can be presented without guidance... whatever that means and in spite of the objections from religious extremists.
Isn't it great to have a system that you can criticize and then test? We call this "science''. The system which is not available for testing is one in which flaws, inconsistencies and outright requirements for supernaturalism are either defined away or ignored. We call this religious dogma. The presence of the flaws surrounding dogma prevent the ability for active investigation.
It is incredibly likely that evolution happened as the theory is described to us. Adaptive change by mutation has been routinely shown in the laboratory. Its not in question among the relevant scientists and researchers. Adaptive change is quite easy to demonstrate in bacteria. Adaptive change in species can be seen in biological organisms today and the fossil record is unequivocal in showing that advantageous forms generated by the mutations and adaptation are quite common.
ID'iot creationism is not at all ''taboo'', its just Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of fear and superstition. Pass that on to your pals at the Disco'tute.
As a Christian I believe there are many life forms throughout the universe. It would be idiotic and against my Christianity to believe otherwise.
Cougarbear
Gold Member
- Jan 29, 2022
- 12,099
- 5,850
- 208
Well, if intelligent life cannot develop past the animal stages, then how did we get here is a question that only Religion can answer. Or, in other words, God is the answer. Inverse logic, you have proven God exists. He has to for us to exist.We may be utterly alone in the universe.
Humans May Be the Only Intelligent Life in the Universe, If Evolution Has Anything to Say
We may be utterly alone in the universe.
Quasar44
Diamond Member
I guarantee the universe has many intelligent life forms
Humans only been around 200,000 years .
The universe is 13-14 B
Now just imagine life only at 2 million years!!
It makes humans look primitive
Quasar44
Diamond Member
Science and religion simply don’t mix
. Yes the universe is teaming with advanced life
Similar threads
