gumby --- I have no wish to turn this into a creation vs. evolution debate. So far as we know the earth is idealy suited for life and conditions here are exactly what would be needed for life elsewhere in the universe . I can't say for sure on whether it could happen somewhere else but am reasonably certain that accidents like this would be remotely possible but improbable. I've watched carl sagans cosmos special and found it lacked any plausible evidence that life could have evolved .
Life Is Probably Out There, Scientists Think
by Satanus 52 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Satanus
Corwin
Welcome. You need a strong telescope to take in this new light.
Heathen
So far as we know the earth is idealy suited for life and conditions here are exactly what would be needed for life elsewhere in the universe .
I'm not answering for the gumfessor, but...
Oh really. To what conditions exactly on the earth, or about the earth, are you referring:
Distance from the sun?
Rotational time?
atmosphere constituents?
Temperature at the equator, north pole, south pole, europe, tahiti etc?
Conditions at the bottom of the ocean?
Conditions in the ocean?
You see, there is life all over the planet, even where conditions are very harsh. For instance, at the bottom of the ocean, near thermal vents, a whole ecosystem has adapted to living off the heat and chemicals of those vents.
In the water in caves that never see any sunlight there is life. Under, in and on the ice of the north pole are many life forms. Hundreds of feet underground, in the dirt, there is miniature bacterial life.
These few example show how life can exist in many forms, and in creatures that have totally different metabolisms to ours. It suggests to me that we shouldn't be too quick to cross off possibilities of life in all kinds of different environments throughout the universe, some environments similar to some on the earth, others totally different.
Furhtermore, why would life all need to be exclusively carbon based. Why could it not be based on other elements as well, such as helium, or silicone?
S
-
truthseeker1
Please don't call science a religion. Science is not a religion. Its a way to establish facts, through trials and tests, then evaluated by peers. Religion involves faith (belief without facts). Science and religion answer 2 different things. Science is slowly encroaching on religion's turf though, and thats ticking off theologist. But people want provable answers to why things are. Thats where science comes in. There are people who can't accept "because god made it so" as an acceptable answer.
If people blindly accept any hypothesis that comes from scientists, its that person's fault. Unless that hypothesis has been repeatably demonstrated as true, its just as viable an answer as religion gives.
-
heathen
Satanus -- I would say that the conditions you have stated are part of it . I think there are alot more than you posted . Sure animal life on this planet lives in some very harsh environments but the assumptions you make are not founded with evidence .Could there be life in the universe besides that on earth just because there is life in harsh environments ? There is no evidence of life in the universe other than that on earth so I must conclude, no . You just made a huge leap from what is known to what is not . I think of all the time and touble people on this planet have gone through for the belief that they can make contact with intelligent life but came up with nothing is more evidence to disprove any belief in extraterrestrial life.
-
Satanus
Heathen
for the belief that they can make contact with intelligent life but came up with nothing is more evidence to disprove any belief in extraterrestrial life.
Could there be life in the universe besides that on earth just because there is life in harsh environments ? There is no evidence of life in the universe other than that on earth so I must conclude, no .
You just made a huge leap from what is known to what is not
So, you would close the book, so to speak? You just made a huge leap from what is not known to conclude that you know there is no other life. I would just keep the book open for further developments.
S
-
hooberus
Religion involves faith (belief without facts).
Just because a religion involves faith, does not necessarily mean that it is a belief without facts. For example the Christian faith teaches that Jesus Christ died by crucifixion under pilate. There is ample historical evidence for this claim, so the facts and religion go together. True religion should be a true faith, that is a faith that is historically factual.
-
talesin
With regards to science as a religion. My statements were that I think some treat it as such. I'm tired, so bear with me if I don't get my point across, and let me know! (hehe, as if you wouldn't :D)
In other words, adherents of science as a religion (my way of putting it) rigidly believe that if we can't prove it, then it is inconceivable to think it is possible. Some of these folk think it is okay to ridicule those whose minds are more open. I guess they think they are smarter because of their cynicism (?).
I just started a book by Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World. When discussing (in the introduction) how his parents inspired and supported his choice to become an astronomer, Sagan says "in introducing me simultaneously to skepticism and to wonder, they taught me the two uneasily cohabiting modes of thought that are central to the scientific method".
Scientists need to be balanced. Skepticism as opposed to cynicism. Wonder as opposed to gullibility.
It's the cynicism and closed-mindedness of those who insist we 'prove' everything that leads me to compare this attitude to 'worshipping science'. They are rigid and dogmatic in their beliefs. Where is their wonder, their acknowledgement of the limitless possibilities of which we may be unaware?
-
heathen
Satanus --- all I've done is take the evidence that is already available to come to my conclusion , yours sound more like science fiction to me . I like science fiction as long as it's not in the world of science . Science deals with facts . The facts show that there is no alien life on any other planet in our solar system . Until some extra terrestrial shows up and proves me wrong that's the way it is . I doubt humans will develope the technology for a long time to travel the speeds needed to travel to other solar systems so I think we would be far more dependant on an alien race contacting us . which isn't happening .
-
Satanus
Heathen
Whatever. What i am mainly saying is that it is too early to form conclusions. We have only been to our own moon, so far; only sent probes to a couple of other bodies for a return of a little information.
I referr you back to the beginning of this thread, to show that we have barely begun to scratch the surface of space exploration.
S
SS
-
heathen
This just came to my attention . The satelite was not recovered . I also am confused on the sending ifrared light 420 light yrs . I mean light can only travel so fast so how do they get this information in such a short time ? I still disagree with the scientist that says life is probably out there . True we have barely scratched the surface of space exploration but ironically I get the feeling that man will never be able to travel the distances for interstellor travel . I think it's time for us on earth to take things more serious and consider what a fantastic planet we live on and attempt to make things better right here .