Waiting for Europa

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes I can and I have given it to you. By all evidence it has only ever occurred once

No , you haven't. That is not an argument. That is a statement. You must now argue why this factoid (and it is a factoid, not a fact, as we would and should nothe so silly as to think we have gathered enough evidence to make a determination on the evidence) would compel one to believe that life has only ever formed exactly once o .the universe.

So, go ahead. Make your argument. I not seeing it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Statistics are useless, eh?

That is obviously not what I meant. You are not a very honest person, are you?

The mathematics in your fallacy are worthless, as the reasoning is specious (though, you never presented any statistics; 'probability' is the word you are looking for, and you never presented any probabilities, either).

It's a fallacy that is merely a reiteration of Zeno's paradox of movement. It's simply not valid reasoning. The person wielding it either doesn't know better or is trying to fool people who dont know better.

You are of the former variety.

 

[DOTR]

How would you explain life only being on earth?

How do we know life is only on Earth?

We can't even say that about our own solar system, let alone the other 70 to 100 billion trillion other solar systems.
.

Earth is the only planet that we can see produced life. And by all evidence it was a one time unique event even here in a place we KNOW can produce life.
As far as can be determined scientifically we are all there is.
You can wish and you can hope. You can even go look for life on Europa (no harm in that and we will advance science either way). But you have no scientific reason to believe there is.
People married to certain liberal and humanist philosophies can’t admit that for fear of where it may lead.
In other words even in this age superstition and magical thinking still pollute science efforts.

 

[DOTR]

Yes I can and I have given it to you. By all evidence it has only ever occurred once

No , you haven't. That is not an argument. That is a statement. You must now argue why this factoid (and it is a factoid, not a fact, as we would and should nothe so silly as to think we have gathered enough evidence to make a determination on the evidence) would compel one to believe that life has only ever formed exactly once o .the universe.

So, go ahead. Make your argument. I not seeing it.

No I’m not going to argue. As you say...I made a statement of fact. Until you find a way to accept that what is there to argue?

 

[DOTR]

Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life

This article says a mission to Europa could happen as soon as June 2022. The mission would fly through the plumes that shoot out from its (believed) under-ice oceans for specific analysis, looking for any signs of microbial life.

Badass. If there is any kind of life there, it's over - life is everywhere in the universe.

I GOTTA WAIT FOUR-PLUS YEARS. GAH.
.

What's over?

Doubt that life is everywhere in the universe.

No?
.

We don't know how rare life is.

If life was just merely a combination of chemistry, water and temperature then we would be able able to create life in a lab but we haven't been able to do it.

There is a possibility that life is unique to earth. The universe may be hostile to life including Europa.

Advance life may be very rare.

Since we don't have any facts that life exist outside of earth then all we have are guesses at this time.

My guess.is that there is the possibility that low level cellar life may exist elsewhere. However, advanced life may be unique to earth.

A very good book to read is "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe" by Ward and Brownlee. It explores the fact that advanced live on earth was helped along by some very happenstance events that may or may not exist elsewhere.

Rare Earth (book) - Wikipedia

Rare Earth (book)

The book argues 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. The book argues 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.

Looks good. Will order it today.

 

[Votto]

Statistics are useless, eh?

That is obviously not what I meant. You are not a very honest person, are you?

The mathematics in your fallacy are worthless, as the reasoning is specious (though, you never presented any statistics; 'probability' is the word you are looking for, and you never presented any probabilities, either).

It's a fallacy that is merely a reiteration of Zeno's paradox of movement. It's simply not valid reasoning. The person wielding it either doesn't know better or is trying to fool people who dont know better.

You are of the former variety.

Statistics? You want statistics?

In 1968, Professor Harold Morowitz, a physicist at Yale University, published the book "Energy Flow in Biology". Along with other physicists and mathematicians, he had become concerned about the casualness with which some scientists studying the origins of life were assuming that unlikely events must have occurred. These scientists were making assumptions without any attempt to rigorously investigate the probability of such events. Morowitz presented computations of the time required for random chemical reactions to form a bacterium -- not an organism as complex as a human being, not even a flower, just a simple, single celled bacterium. Basing his calculations on optimistically rapid rates of reactions, the calculated time for the bacterium to form exceeds not only the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, but also the entire 15 billion year age of the universe.

What is even more astonishing, is that life appeared almost immediately on Earth. The oldest sedimentary rock dated is 3.3 billion years old which shows rod shaped single celled organisms with them, discovered by Elso Barghoorn and JW Schopf of Harvard.

And this is just what is found as evidence in the sedimentary rock. There is no reason life may not have developed earlier.

 

[Mac1958]

How would you explain life only being on earth?

How do we know life is only on Earth?

We can't even say that about our own solar system, let alone the other 70 to 100 billion trillion other solar systems.
.

Earth is the only planet that we can see produced life. And by all evidence it was a one time unique event even here in a place we KNOW can produce life.
As far as can be determined scientifically we are all there is.
You can wish and you can hope. You can even go look for life on Europa (no harm in that and we will advance science either way). But you have no scientific reason to believe there is.
People married to certain liberal and humanist philosophies can’t admit that for fear of where it may lead.
In other words even in this age superstition and magical thinking still pollute science efforts.

Well of course we have no other evidence. Yet. But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life. We're learning more every day.

But now I see where you're going with this. Science has nothing to do with it. You have an old book that tells you what's what.

Humans have always had gods. This god, that god. They provide us with simple answers, and guidance and comfort. We want desperately to think we have The Answer To Everything, and pointing to an all-powerful, all-knowing being wraps everything up into a neat little package.

We figure we can lay our sins and everything else off on some celestial dictator, like a divine North Korea.

Well, that's a nice and simple way to go through life, but that doesn't make it true. There are other possibilities.
.

 

[Mac1958]

A caveman hadn't seen fire, or a beating heart, or microbial bacteria YET. That doesn't mean they didn't exist. We evolved intellectually.

To pretend you know there is no life out there assumes that we know all there is to know. That there's nothing new to learn.

Holy crap. That's disturbing in its intellectual laziness and its narcissism.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

A caveman hadn't seen fire, or a beating heart, or microbial bacteria YET. That doesn't mean they didn't exist. We evolved intellectually.

To pretend you know there is no life out there assumes that we know all there is to know. That there's nothing new to learn.

Holy crap. That's disturbing in its intellectual laziness and its narcissism.
.

It always seems odd to me that people would limit themselves quite voluntarily to an understanding of the world based upon the superstitions of ancient societies. It's almost as if curiosity, itself, is the enemy. Without curiosity, there would be no science, and without science, it is easier to cling to the superstitions.

There really doesn't need to be a conflict between religion and science. Why not view science as the tool for unlocking the wonderful mysteries of God's creation? Just because people of 2000 years ago did not know enough to be able to appreciate the wonderful complexity of it all and so simplified it, that does not mean we have to follow suit.

 

[DOTR]

Well of course we have no other evidence. Yet. But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life. We're learning more every day.

But now I see where you're going with this. Science has nothing to do with it. You have an old book that tells you what's what.


.

No you dont see where I am going. Your own religion prevents that. You have been inculcated by a book yourself into a faith in the unprovable Mediocrity Principle and Drake Equation (with lots of help from science fiction writers). You see any questioning of these bedrock beliefs of yours as presenting an opposing religion/philosophy. Or at the very least you misunderstand my motives.

I can make it plainer. Either we discuss the science or we discuss the philosophical questions the science leads us to. But here and now I am only discussing science with no hidden "gotchas" waiting. There are philosophical implications to this but wanting to avoid these implications is no reason to deny plain facts is it?

But...sticking to science...there is no reason to believe in extraterrestrial life. Such a belief has no empirical basis. In fact quite the opposite. As you say we learn more every day and one of the most astounding discoveries recently is how quick life began on earth. It did not take billions of years. It didn't even take a billion years. It apparently didnt even take a half billion years. It may not have taken even 100 million years. And it only happened once (by evidence).

If you deny this you attack all settled science of biology and evolution because we base it all on common descent. That life originated once is so settled that there isn't even a competing theory to consider.

And Earth is in a place we *know* to be conducive to life. So why would you expect anything different on Europa?

 

[Mac1958]

Well of course we have no other evidence. Yet. But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life. We're learning more every day.

But now I see where you're going with this. Science has nothing to do with it. You have an old book that tells you what's what.


.

No you dont see where I am going. Your own religion prevents that. You have been inculcated by a book yourself into a faith in the unprovable Mediocrity Principle and Drake Equation (with lots of help from science fiction writers). You see any questioning of these bedrock beliefs of yours as presenting an opposing religion/philosophy. Or at the very least you misunderstand my motives.

I can make it plainer. Either we discuss the science or we discuss the philosophical questions the science leads us to. But here and now I am only discussing science with no hidden "gotchas" waiting. There are philosophical implications to this but wanting to avoid these implications is no reason to deny plain facts is it?

But...sticking to science...there is no reason to believe in extraterrestrial life. Such a belief has no empirical basis. In fact quite the opposite. As you say we learn more every day and one of the most astounding discoveries recently is how quick life began on earth. It did not take billions of years. It didn't even take a billion years. It apparently didnt even take a half billion years. It may not have taken even 100 million years. And it only happened once (by evidence).

If you deny this you attack all settled science of biology and evolution because we base it all on common descent. That life originated once is so settled that there isn't even a competing theory to consider.

And Earth is in a place we *know* to be conducive to life. So why would you expect anything different on Europa?

I'm not denying or attacking anything.

I admit, I don't know. But I'm definitely curious.

You, on the other hand, think you have it all figured out.
.

 

[DOTR]

How would you explain life only being on earth?

How do we know life is only on Earth?

We can't even say that about our own solar system, let alone the other 70 to 100 billion trillion other solar systems.
.

Earth is the only planet that we can see produced life. And by all evidence it was a one time unique event even here in a place we KNOW can produce life.
As far as can be determined scientifically we are all there is.
You can wish and you can hope. You can even go look for life on Europa (no harm in that and we will advance science either way). But you have no scientific reason to believe there is.
People married to certain liberal and humanist philosophies can’t admit that for fear of where it may lead.
In other words even in this age superstition and magical thinking still pollute science efforts.

Well of course we have no other evidence. Yet. But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life. We're learning more every day.

But now I see where you're going with this. Science has nothing to do with it. You have an old book that tells you what's what.

Humans have always had gods. This god, that god. They provide us with simple answers, and guidance and comfort. We want desperately to think we have The Answer To Everything, and pointing to an all-powerful, all-knowing being wraps everything up into a neat little package.

We figure we can lay our sins and everything else off on some celestial dictator, like a divine North Korea.

Well, that's a nice and simple way to go through life, but that doesn't make it true. There are other possibilities.
.

And by the way..speaking of "old books"...finding extraterrestrial life would have no effect whatsoever on my religious beliefs.

 

[james bond]

Microbial life, is probably anywhere that has water.....imo.

Human life, or intelligent alien....chances are slimmer.... not impossible, but less possible than microbial life.

My understanding is there is the probability is high that there is no other life anywhere because of the fine tuning facts.

 

[Mac1958]

How would you explain life only being on earth?

How do we know life is only on Earth?

We can't even say that about our own solar system, let alone the other 70 to 100 billion trillion other solar systems.
.

Earth is the only planet that we can see produced life. And by all evidence it was a one time unique event even here in a place we KNOW can produce life.
As far as can be determined scientifically we are all there is.
You can wish and you can hope. You can even go look for life on Europa (no harm in that and we will advance science either way). But you have no scientific reason to believe there is.
People married to certain liberal and humanist philosophies can’t admit that for fear of where it may lead.
In other words even in this age superstition and magical thinking still pollute science efforts.

Well of course we have no other evidence. Yet. But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life. We're learning more every day.

But now I see where you're going with this. Science has nothing to do with it. You have an old book that tells you what's what.

Humans have always had gods. This god, that god. They provide us with simple answers, and guidance and comfort. We want desperately to think we have The Answer To Everything, and pointing to an all-powerful, all-knowing being wraps everything up into a neat little package.

We figure we can lay our sins and everything else off on some celestial dictator, like a divine North Korea.

Well, that's a nice and simple way to go through life, but that doesn't make it true. There are other possibilities.
.

And by the way..speaking of "old books"...finding extraterrestrial life would have no effect whatsoever on my religious beliefs.

I have no doubt about that.
.

 

[DOTR]

I'm not denying or attacking anything.

I admit, I don't know. But I'm definitely curious.

You, on the other hand, think you have it all figured out.
.

I can only go by what we know. And that doesn't kill curiosity. On the contrary it is what we have not figured out is what I am insanely curious about.
Why only once?

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not denying or attacking anything.

I admit, I don't know. But I'm definitely curious.

You, on the other hand, think you have it all figured out.
.

I can only go by what we know. And that doesn't kill curiosity. On th contrary what we have not figured out is what I am insanely curious about.
Why only once?

I don't know what you mean by "why only once".
.

 

[fncceo]

Life on other planets.

 

[DOTR]

And, as much as "why only once" are the many miraculous (for lack of a better word) events that got us here. The "why only once" doesnt just apply to the origin of life. Why did eukaryotes only develop once and what are the odds? Why chirality? Why ATP Synthase and why only once there? Why "wobble pairs" in the third codon?
It always seems as if life is driving towards something and though improbable filters. I would say "impossible" filters but obviously they happened....once.

 

[DOTR]

Life on other planets.

We have always known that evolution produces skimpy dresses and nice legs.

 

[DOTR]

Science is desperate to find life elsewhere, because the questions are just too troubling for them if there is none.

This is true. But giving up cherished belief systems is a difficult process. Scientists are no different.