E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
M. Kornmesser / ESO
A cartoon view of the Milky Way shows stars bristling with planets. The planets, their orbits and the sizes of their host stars are all vastly magnified in the cartoon.
A statistical analysis based on a survey of millions of stars suggests that there's at least one planet for every star in the sky, and probably more. That would add up to 160 billion planets or so in the Milky Way.
"We conclude that stars are orbited by planets as a rule, rather than the exception," an international research team reports today in the journal Nature.
The estimate may sound amazing: Just a year ago, the world was wowed by the claim that at least half of the 100 billion or more stars in the Milky Way possessed planets, yielding a figure of 50 billion planets. The latest survey now suggests that there's an average of 1.6 planets per star system, which would work out to 160 billion. But perhaps the most amazing thing about the findings is ... astronomers don't find them amazing at all.
"I am not surprised by the numbers," Didier Queloz, a planet-hunter at the Geneva Observatory who was not involved in the survey, told me in an email. Back in 2008, Queloz was part of a different research team that concluded one-third of the stars like our sun harbored super-Earth-size planets — the kinds of planets that could support life.
Over the past couple of years, findings from a variety of planet-hunting missions — including NASA's Kepler space telescope, the European Space Agency's COROT telescope and ground-based telescope surveys — have reinforced the view that planets are plentiful.
"Results from the three main techniques of planet detection are rapidly converging to a common result: Not only are planets common in the galaxy, but there are more small planets than large ones," Caltech astronomer Stephen Kane, a member of the team behind the findings reported in Nature, said in a news release from the Space Telescope Science Institute. "This is encouraging news for investigations into habitable planets."
Six years' worth of data
The new findings draw upon six years' worth of data from two wide-field surveys known as PLANET and OGLE. These surveys use a network of telescopes around the world, scanning the night sky for very rare events in which the light from one star system is amplified by the gravitational-lensing effect of another star (and perhaps a planet) passing in front of it. This particular planet-hunting method is known as microlensing, as opposed to the transit method (which looks for telltale dips in starlight as a planet crosses its parent star's disk) or the radial-velocity method (which looks for the slight gravitational wobble in a star that has a planet in orbit).
A. Feild / STScI / NASA / ESA
This graphic explains how microlensing is used to detect planets. Click on the image for a larger version.
During their six years of searching, the microlensing researchers identified only three actual planets. But they combined those detections with seven earlier detections, plus all the data about non-detections, to arrive at an estimate of how probable it is that planets of different types would be found around a star.
They estimated that about 17 percent of the stars in the Milky Way should host planets in the Jupiter range (0.3 to 10 times as massive as Jupiter), 52 percent should have planets in the Neptune range (10 to 30 times Earth's mass), and 62 percent should have super-Earth-size planets (five to 10 times Earth's mass).
All these figures are surrounded by wide bands of uncertainty. For example, the researchers say their estimate of 1.6 planets per star system could actually be anywhere between 0.7 and 2.5. But the lead author of the Nature study told me that his team's estimate is the best guess yet.
"The average number we find is higher than estimates derived by other methods," said Arnaud Cassan, an astronomer at the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris. That's because the microlensing method can detect planets as small as five times Earth's mass up to 10 times Jupiter's mass, in orbits ranging from 0.5 to 10 times as wide as Earth's. Other methods aren't that sensitive, Cassan said.
"If they could detect planets with a range farther out, our guess is that they would find more planets," Cassan said.
What are the chances?
The big issue would have to do with how precise the statistical analysis can be with such a small sample of actual detections. Microlensing events are so rare that coming upon even one is like winning the lottery, and that makes the numbers difficult to crunch. But after reviewing the Nature paper, Queloz told me that Cassan and his colleagues conducted "a very good statistical analysis of the microlensing surveys."
Whether the actual number of planets in the Milky Way is 70 billion or 250 billion, it's a big, big number — 10 to 30 planets for every human on Earth. And the number doesn't even count worlds that are less than five times as big as Earth (such as Mercury, Venus, Mars and our own planetary home), inside the orbit of Venus or beyond the orbit of Saturn (such as Uranus, Neptune and the icy dwarfs on the solar system's edge).
Still more revelations about planets beyond our own solar system are coming up this week, but the bottom line for all this is that there's a big cosmos out there — with plenty of opportunities for planets and even life to develop. And that'll always be amazing.
"We used to think that the Earth might be unique in our galaxy," Daniel Kubas, a colleague of Cassan's at the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris and a co-author of the Nature paper, said in a news release from the European Southern Observatory. "But now it seems that there are literally billions of planets with masses similar to Earth orbiting stars in the Milky Way."
More about the planet quest:
- Three newfound worlds are smaller than Earth
- Flash interactive: How other worlds are found
- Two new 'Tatooine' planets with two suns
- SETI researchers check signals in exoplanet study
- Microlensing turns up rocky, low-mass world
- Cosmic Log archive on planets
In addition to Cassan, Kubas and Kane, authors of the Nature paper, "One or More Bound Planets Per Milky Way Star from Microlensing Observations," include J.-P. Beaulieu, M. Dominik, K. Horne, J. Greenhill, J. Wambsganss, J. Menzies, A. Williams, U. G. Jørgensen, A. Udalski, D.P. Bennett, M.D. Albrow, V. Batista, S. Brillant, J.A.R. Caldwell, A. Cole, Ch. Coutures, K.H. Cook, S. Dieters, D. Dominis Prester, J. Donatowicz, P. Fouqué, K. Hill, N. Kains, J.-B. Marquette, R. Martin, K.R. Pollard, K.C. Sahu, C. Vinter, D. Warren, B. Watson, M. Zub, T. Sumi, M.K. Szymanski, M. Kubiak, R. Poleski, I. Soszynski, K. Ulaczyk, G. Pietrzynski and L. Wyrzykowski.
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Sure, why not? And many brimming with life I'll bet.
To bad we're all born in the wrong time and will never get to explore them... :(
In other words... our solar system is not unique and is hardly even special. To put the final nail in the ancient anthropocentric idea that we are the and all and be all center and purpose of all "creation", we were not "created" here in this location for the supposed purpose of "glorifying" our (non-existent) creator. The best we might qualify for is "lucky"... I.E. lucky to be in the so called Goldilocks habitable zone, with plenty of water and carbon. Lucky to have emerged from the long and complex chain of evolutionary events which led to our appearance. Lucky to have not died out as a species from war, disease or starvation. Lucky to be here, typing these words for others to read. Not created, not chosen, not special... merely lucky.
Among the billions of systems out there there may very well be many more which are lucky to be "brimming with life" as well. We'll see.
reincarnation!
I have a hard time calling anything Lucky.
You think you are lucky that we are the only creature on this planet that developed a brain capable of understanding all the things our brains are? No other thing comes close to our brains not within a mile.
So look at our solar system and think how if formed, then we will have a way better understanding of our galaxy. We say there is a super massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, but how can a galaxy form if a black hole is at the center at the start?
So there is not one there at the start but forms later on. How you say, well how does a black hole form? As we know the most dense things and with the most gravity to mass is a super massive dead star (neutron?) So what if all galaxies start out like this with a super star that sheds gases and matter only to form a SMBH and the start of a galaxy? That will be the farm for billions of stars and solor systems and life as we know it!
Plausible?
Brian - except for the neanderthals... and apes are fairly intelligent as well, being able to learn sign language and such... just sayin.
... and dolphins, as well as other whales, and octopi and squid...
Well Duh!! Why would we think our solar system is different than any other system. I'll bet there are at least 6 planets for every star that is the age of our system, or older. I would be willing to venture that most of the stars have a planet in the Goldilocks zone.
We have no idea what happens after we die...whether we just cease to exist or something else wonderful happens.
Who knows...
Of course we don't, but my hunch is it's something pretty close to what happens before we live ... which is to say, not a whole lot.
Maybe all the planets and stars are just an atom in Gods body.
Hey Chad, just because you can't recall something doesn't mean it didn't take place.
But there's only one god, folks - the one worshipped by Christian fundamentalist.
Anybody want to take a gues on how many of those 160 billion are populated with the same kind of idiots that live on this planet?
Correct again ... but who said differently?
My post was an opinion, not an assertion of fact.
Do you have some past-lives you'd like to tell us all about? Personally (again, personally) I think the afterlife is wishful thinking ... a manifestation of a conscious mind able to imagine it ... and nothing more.
Of course I could be wrong, but it's a personal philosophy that has served me well. It makes me live day-to-day as though it's my last. It makes me cherish life, and not view it as a simple intermediary.
I wonder? If more people did that, what would the world look like?
Baddog40
You could probably start your own religion based on that one simple statement.
Doesn't it disturb anyone that both the author, Alan Boyle, and apparently the authors of the study avoid discussing the importance of the Goldilocks Zone of habitability a planet has to orbit in for life to have a chance to arise?
Not to mention other key factors such as heavy elements components that only predominates within a slim sliver of a galactic-own 'goldilock' zone, and the fact that plate-tectonic movements assited by an inordinately large size moon for the size of a planet as our own (and ours was most likely an exogenous heavenly body captured by chance by our planet) is so important for maintaining life through its carbon cycling. (Hence, a major factor Mars is dead and/or life had no chance for sustainability.) When all these additional factors are incorporated the chances of life becomes much, much more dicier.
It's nice to dream but we have no way to get there and probably never will until we stop our petty bickering.
Baddog.......bad, bad boy! Now stop humping my leg and go lay down!
Yes and no. I've enjoyed the timing, being 10 when Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" was first aired and he mentioned the techniques being used "some day" that have now given us this information. What used to be a question of if there were any other planets at all around other stars has become a question of how many billions there are, and I was born in a time where I could see and understand what's been happening with the search for these worlds over the past 30 years.
We should tax them... just think, if we tax each planet $7000 we'd pay off our debt.
Baddog, Im sorry for the sarcastic response., i thought you were being serious............oops
Jose, the author doesn't even mention the word "life" in the article. He's just taking about planets, not habitable planets. The points you raise are valid when discussing the possibility of life. So, no, I don't find anything the author said as disturbing. Rather, this is a fascinating article.
Doesn't it disturb anyone that both the author, Alan Boyle, and apparently the authors of the study avoid discussing the importance of the Goldilocks Zone of habitability a planet has to orbit in for life to have a chance to arise?
Jose, no disturbance here whatsoever. Remember this phrase, 'Life as we know it', emphasis on the we, and you will not be so locked into the Goldilocks zone concept and the whole habitability idea. We humans need to be more open minded about where and what we look for in our search for life in the universe. It is 'earthcentric' to believe that all life will be carbon based or that all life requires the same conditions that created life on the earth. Know this, life itself is super intelligent and it will find a way to exist, we just need to be more open minded when looking for it.
They have to rewrite the bible!
First (reliable) Steam Engine - 1775. First Diesel (ICE) Engine - 1894. First Flight - 1903. First large scale rockets - 1940s. Apollo 17 - 1972. We now have our 3rd space station in orbit. We have plans to go to the moon and mars. We have working ion engines. We are already well on our way to the stars. We just have to get out of our own way...
Maybe the Mormons have it right.
Wilsonaide, why would the Holy Bible have to be rewritten? My God is creator of the universe, not just this earth. There are likely millions of planets. We cannot fathom the mind of God so why try. It is enough to try and live in peace with each other here. If there is life on other planets, let us hope they have learned to live in peace.
worms gotta eat too
If life were so easy to create, only needing a habital zone with some water and carbon...why cant we even construct one cell from scratch? As smart as we are, we have no @!$%#ing clue how to create even one cell, let alone a living being. Lets face it folks, we have no idea how this all began. Not the bible thumpers, nor the atheists.
Oh really? you might be interested in this then...
www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/
Kornfed--they have, way back in 1952-Cornell University, check it out They got slime from seven, steril, inert gasses after exposing it to UV light.
I have read what your all saying and to be serious about were lucky being in the Goldilocks zone. Yes, that we are. Reason being We have only discovered a pin hole in our heavens. We have found earth like planets, but their not even close to the Goldilocks zone. ( too hot, too cold, no water, having water) there is so much needed to be in the zone. That's what makes us lucky. Now with that said , I do believe there is life out there, maybe not as we know it (intelligent) We have been listening for many years. But we hear nothing from an alien source. Maybe there is another type of communication source out there that were not familiar with that is out of our technology range. UFO's: if they exist there must be a way for them to communicate. Why can't we hear them? Lets say there is life out there for the moment., and there similar to our age in time. But there has to be more. That have to have a brain. Saying that. Their brain has to be similar to ours. Then there is evolving? There is a learning procedure as we know (education). Doing this leads to prosperity. then using the resources on their planet to do the things were now doing. I think it's asking alot. If we find life? It's pretty much going to be bug form. I don't expect to find a planet out there having buildings, theme parks, governments, divided countries, Grocery stores, trains, cars, money, etc. We are the lucky ones. Earth is a perfect place. Hear this, We already know of other life right here on our own planet. You don't see any of our existing life forms building rockets, taking education classes, building vehicles, going to the hospital when injured. Humans are the only species that can do what we do , and there is NO other. This leads me to an existing higher life form ( GOD). He is the creator and I don't want to preach here. In the bible he never mentions life outside of earth. It's just us. Were alone.
I wonder if those Planet's are all flat too?
This is more likely to be an absurd proposition than anything remotely plausible and unlikely ever to be confirmed.
There is an awful lot of wishful thinking that goes with being an atheist who believes in myriad Earth-like planets he's never seen and can never see simply on a simplistically narrow and ignorant evaluation of a very few parameters and doing some elementary number crunching with a mere handful of facts--a handful that is ridiculously dwarfed by the very numbers he fancies himself to be in awe of to begin with.
It is well night impossible that there is another planet in the galaxy that has a moon which exactly matches the visible size of its planet's star so as to cause total eclipses that reveal the star's corona to the surface of the planet. That such another moon might exist which was also the right mass and distance from its host planet to produce a strong enough tide to circulate its oceans--assuming the Earth-sized planet had something over half of its surface covered with saline water to depths measured in miles (needed for a useful amount of atmospheric water vapor pressure) that was also not too salty to support any life, and yet did not have ALL of its surface covered with water (which would rule out life as we know it)--without so energetically throwing all that water around in such a way that no creature would call such a place "home," and . . . well, once one really begins to look at all the details (magnetic field from an iron core--we know of iron cores without magnetism--the shielding of Van Allen belts generated by that magnetism . . . etc. , . . . etc., . . . etc,. . . . one begins to realize that the number of details that have to line up perfectly for a planet to be a viable site for a home for creature life comparable to this one begins very quickly to approach the number of stars--not in the galaxy, but in the universe!--and it blows all this mythological speculation about "not being the center of God's attention" completely out of the water. So far, the search for extraterrestrial planets has turned up not one--NOT ONE--planet that has anything remotely like a circular orbit.
Any idea just how important to life is our almost nearly perfectly circular orbit? Any idea how important to our enduring habitability is the presence of a huge planet like Jupiter not too far away to steer wayward masses in its direction and away from ours? How about the moon's stabilizing effect on the Earth's axis of rotation, which keeps it from precessing all the way over on end and alternately roasting and freezing the polar regions every few million years? Now you have to find not only a planet in the Goldilocks zone, not only one with an impossibly unlikely single moon of the right mass and distance, but one such IN A CIRCULAR ORBIT with a nearby neighbor that is a gas giant, that has the right amount of water, the right density and magnetism due to an iron core, the right magnetism formed by radioactive decay of heavy elements, . . . . . . . . . . .
And we haven't even begun to talk about the shape of the coastline of Europe and the influence this very wiggly line had on human history and technological development. Nowhere else on Earth is everyone in a temperate zone within a few day's boat ride from the sea, and we haven't even mentioned the trade and commerce cradle that is formed by the almost, but not -- squeeze -- completely -- squeeze -- landlocked and inaccessible to the oceans and the general circulation of ocean water. (How does water enter the Mediterranean? How does it leave? You don't know? Then you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about when you talk about life in outer space and alien sih-vuhl-azz-ay-shunz).
You atheists are dreaming.
The moon was likely formed in a cataclysm that is very possibly rare enough to have been one-of-a-kind in the whole universe. And there would be no life as we know it without our very singular moon. Venus has no moon. Nor Mercury. Nor Mars, for that matter, unless you count those two little rocks it captured from the asteroid belt.
The more any truly intelligent mind looks at this question, the more obvious it becomes that this Earth was DESIGNED to be a habitation for life.
We ARE at the center of the universe. At least, we are as far as we know we are. It is an observable fact, so far as anything is KNOWN, that all of the KNOWN observers in the universe are on Planet Earth, and that therefore this is the one Point-of-View that is relevant to anything that can be known about, say, the speed of light, for example, which is always RELATIVE TO AN OBSERVER. Thus it is safe to say that so far as is known, the Earth is at the center of the observed universe.
Again, since you atheist believers-in-the-myth of life in outer space are typically so dense between the ears and your ears themselves don't seem to function very well, it bears repeating, THERE HAS YET BEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS ANY SUCH THING AS AN EXTRA-SOLAR PLANET WITH A CIRCULAR ORBIT. Such a thing is already clearly an unlikely thing to expect to find. It may very well be even more rare than that.
On that basis alone you can calculate the odds that there is an Earth-like Goldilocks planet somewhere else in the universe. The probability of that being real, true, and factual is
zero.
You're just too proud to believe that God would make such an astronomically huge statement about how important we are to Him as to create so much that inspires awe just for the sake of impressing the creatures He became Man and also died for.
Laughing man, no educated Christian has EVER believed that the earth is flat. That is another myth propagated by societies "priesthood of the keepers of secret and privileged knowledge", who first laid claim to that crazy notion when they controlled all information in the middle ages, to obscure the truth that this was the view of those who did NOT know the Bible.
Christianity has ALWAYS been a body of EQUALS, and there is no inner SECRET that has been hidden from the unwashed, but the truth has been available to EVERYONE from its beginning.
But a modern scientist believes that the universe is flat. They still persist in that idea, even today. Else, if believing in the notion of an all-time constant speed of light is not a belief in a flat universe, then what very strange sort of thing is it that holds to a constant that is not a constant?
The Jehovah's Witnesses might have something to say about that.
And everything revolves around the earth too.
You say 50 years lol wooppty dooptty
earth is 4.5 billions years old, how long does it take light to reach our nearest star? And we are listening for radio and sent out radio, that takes even longer than light!
So 50 years is like 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 % that we have had our ears on!
So don't hold your breath cause it take a little time!
GOD did not create man!
MAN created god!
So get ready to rewrite your Bibles AGAIN!
Bollocks mate! Everyone knows the Earth was formed in 7 days and has been around for about 6,000 years!
Education, that so-called "life" was not built from scratch,but from parts taken from living creatures, but it WAS created by one or more intelligent beings. Dr. Frankenstein's monster does not qualify as a sufficient and satisfactory explanation for our existence as a matter of mere "chance."
What is more, science cannot even demonstrate that there IS any such thing as random chance. Ask anyone who makes a living by working with supposedly "random" numbers if there is any such thing. Pseudo-random numbers are the best they can come up with, because they cannot get the PATTERNS that keep showing up out of their supposedly "random" events.
Georgetroll, that slime was poisonous to life, and the gas mixture from which it came was nothing like what is believed by mainstream science to have ever been an atmosphere of this planet.
well john. I see you put a lot of effort into your post's. I respect the fact that you actually present an argument for your beliefs. Here is what I believe
God created the Universe, and it's inhabitants. I think from that point on he just let them go. Which eventually brought forth what we call evolution. Why can't it bee possible that adaptation, natural selection, and evolution are all systems that we're DESIGNED TO BE THAT WAY? Because if the lord truly is as intelligent as we say he is, he would have had the foresight to understand that things change, and the Creatures affected by those changes have to change with it.
Brian, I think you need to go rewrite your science textbook. Or buy a new book, one or the other.
Light and radio waves have been traveling at the same speed for at least as long as I have known about it.
I'll make a bet with you. I'll bet my very life itself against every dollar you will ever own or have owed to you that the Bible will prove less in need of change and less inaccurate, when all human history has been fully said and done, than the sum of all that you have ever said or written when you were as dogmatic and as sure of yourself as you seem to be right now.
Still sure of yourself? Wanna take this bet?
.
I thought it was six days and on the seventh god got lazy and took the day off!
Laughing, there appears to be hope for you.
It appears that you do at least grasp that this universe clearly exhibits not less evidence of intelligence behind it than the fact that foresight was required to establish its parameters before all that change took place.
Religion = Delusional
Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 book General Psychopathology.[2] These criteria are:
Furthermore, when a false belief involves a value judgment, it is only considered as a delusion if it is so extreme that it cannot be or ever can be proven true (example: a man claims that he flew into the sun and flew back home. This would be considered a delusion).
Anything else?
I would think that an intelligent mind would realize that life adapts to its environment. Even with the limitations of one planet for reference at this point, we have organisms in environments from the subzero deserts of Antarctica to the superheated waters in the midoceanic rifts.
As far as a designer goes, what the hell would such a being be thinking to put all the effort you suggest into the planet's formation while leaving nipples on men and making such flawed creatures as rabbits that have such inefficient digestive systems that they have to re-ingest material that already went through their system once?
And there's no pride, in the negative sense, in believing that some infinite being actually considering you to be important? Your bit about us being the "center of the universe" also seems to have some pride involved. It reminds me of the joke about someone changing the light bulb by standing still and expecting the world turning around them to do the rest.
Brian, ignoring the non-sequiturs, false dillemmas, and illogical use of the rules of formal logic by basing your arguments upon false premises, there was one very good point that you raised which does, merit serious consideration:
You referred to the "six days" of creation and the rest afterward.
If you could get past your infantile need to think of Moses' parabolic description as a physics lesson gone awry, you might even come back down to earth long enough to see that what Moses wrote is more than merely metaphorically consistent with what we know from mainstream science.
Creation took place in distinct stages. There were a number of disctinct acts of spontaneous creation, and afterward, the physical universe took the shape that was set in motion by those distinct origins. We know of the Big Bang from the physical evidence, and we've read about "Let there be light." Those who want to quibble about whether a sea of quarks constitutes "light" are missing an important point, which I dont' have the time or patience to explain in detail here. But science basically tells us that in a spontaneous instant, the "stuff" of light came into being. Another distinct origin was the origin of the "light" that we call "light." Science tells us that the early universe was dark, and that photons did not come into being until later, after a -- can we say miraculous ? --"inflation." THEN light came on. As Moses wrote. And divided light from the darkness. Another distinct origin was that of DNA and the information of replicating life. Another distinct origin was the sudden proliferation of different forms of life at the Cambrian explosion, in which more information came into being than could every be rationally explained by random chance. Furthermore, there is no mechanism in Darwinian evolution for a Cambrian explosion and the fossil record is of the sudden appearance of almost every known family of creatures from a comparative handful of what had previously been hardly more than a few worms and germs. Moses told us that God lifted the dry land above the waters of the sea. Science tells us the same thing,
I could go on, but it's getting late, and I have other business to attend to.
The evidence of science is of a series of inexplicable beginnings that, propelled by simple inertia, came to be what there is today by virtue of the laws and principles that had been set in motion. This is the same story as that of a six day creation and a seventh day rest. To argue otherwise is to pretend that one cannot see any symbolism in a Hollywood movie, either. That's why Jesus called the civic leaders of His day "imposters" who could read the weather in the clouds, but pretended that they could not see any spiritual values in His presence among them.
This is not to say that God is not involved in His creation today. Jesus said, "My father works always, and I, too must work."
But the work of CREATION was done, and rested from. The work that Jesus did was the work of SALVATION. The work that is left yet to be done is the work we see being done every day in our own lives, and the future to which it leads, which will not always be confined to the limits of this physical universe. You call that a delusion.
I call you a delusion.
Take my bet if you are so sure of yourself. If you win, you can take my life and no judge can fault you. You don't HAVE to kill, me, but you could if you wanted to (assuming that you won the bet). You could make me your slave and command my every move (again, only if you were to win that bet). If I win, I can take all your money, and no judge can fault me. I'd have no use for it, of course, but that's neither here nor there. I choose to make this bet, so that's my business.
Wanna take it?
Winner to be determined at the Last Judgment.
I know, you think that's a delusion. So what have you got to lose? Take the bet.
Yosho, pride looks at nipples on men and does not see the trap.
Just like a bird looks at a string on the ground and does not see a trap.
"The Lord created everything for a reason, even the wicked, for the day of trouble."
If there were no atheists, there would have been no crucifixion, and no Christian martyrs in the future, thus no Glory.
But I don't really expect you to understand this. I'm only speaking for the sake of those who have ears to hear with.
I'm not in the habit of giving what is holy to dogs, or throwing things of value before pigs.
Sounds like criteria that would apply equally to "spontaneous generation" and life on other planets.
In fact, it sounds like an accurate description of Darwinian evolution or a naturalistic origin of life by mere random chance.
Especially the parts about "not changeable by compelling counterargument" and "impossibility."
Or like:
Something from nothing.
LIfe from non-life
A creature without a parent
Information from randomness
Order from chaos
An unshakable belief that the universe quite naturally operates in contradiction to the observed laws of thermodynamics
Ah, the old "God in the gaps" approach. If we let that stop our exploration of the universe, we'd wtill think the world was flat and thunder was the sound of angels bowling.
Last I heard, the Romans were polytheists and the Pharisees were monotheists.
Yet you continue to take up space here instead of some religious forum.
Mankind is primitive in every way you look at it, Arrogant and superstitious and sometimes illusions of grandeur seems to describe the human species, and I am using only the best of the best for example sake!, just imagine if I were to use the average citizen of the Earth, it would not give us the best prize for intelligence!, We all are at this moment in human history "Emotional uncivilized Monkeys with iPads!", maybe one day in the far off future we can be better examples of "Civilization" for this Milky way galaxy!
and please no arguing the fact that we are primitive, because out of the millions of examples on my short list, I could just ask you to look anywhere on that one way communication device we call "TV" and view the constant barrage of conflict, rape, murder, theft, torture and other humorous things that we do to each other..... Humans are wretched things!
Religion was and still is a necessary thing to contain mankind until he evolves in to a more Logic based being!, So all these self described "Atheist" who by all accounts act in the very way that religion acts!,
Let's be clear until mankind evolves past his current state, he would be his own worst enemy in the fight against extinction! mankind is already at the edge of the precipice of his own destruction, I am amazed he has not done it sooner, and the next 200 years are going to be the worst!
Most look at religion as something silly and ignorant to have a belief in an imagined invisible entity who has created everything, and there are many reasons for how that came to be in many variations of the original from eons ago, suffice it to say it was a simple control of the human heard and without it God only knows where we would be today!
I will leave you all with a thought, "Imagine the human species 5000 years in the future where he has conquered his emotional instability, his irrational aggressive violent nature, and has led himself to attain a longer lifespan in order to achieve an efficient method of incremental gain in intelligence."
Although on the surface it would seem to be a boring place because of the removal of the current mayhem, of which can be entertaining at times, but with our current primitive state of mind it would be hard for most to perceive a world where one could spend time on improving and evolving oneself in one lifetime versus the current example of ourselves in which we waste 99% of our lives doing nothing worth boasting about, merely existing!
..... just like we are doing here on this blog....nothing important! an average day for an iPad carting monkey dweller.
Math time! 160 billion planets (we'll assume that's fairly accurate, there are probably more as it doesn't factor in small planets).
If one tenth of one percent have earth-like planets, and one tenth of one percent of those have life, then you get 160,000 planets with life out there.
Taken one step further, if one tenth of one percent of those planets with life have intelligent life, then you get 160 planets with some sort of civilization. Not a lot, but highly likely I think that there are other thinking beings out there.
My bet is that number is on the low side.
The Goldilocks Zone is pretty f'ing big.
Then add hundreds of billions of planets in this galaxy alone.
Out of hundreds of billions of solar systems in this single galaxy, what do you think the chances are of something falling within the Goldilocks Zone? Pretty good, I'd venture.
Since "God did it" has proven not to be the answer for so many things we once thought it was the answer to, over and over again - and figuring that supernatural sh*t cannot be quantified in science and therefor is irrelevant - and that the earth now has life.... hmmm.
True though, abiogenesis is still early and ongoing. But "God did it" is not an answer.
I'm confused exactly how illogical, irrational, and often very devisive belief systems are any sort of substitute for becoming a logic based being.
Yep 160 billion planets and they all came from absolute nothingness.
Total and complete vacuum.
From 100% emptiness to 160 Billion planets in our Galaxy alone.
It defies logic.
Amazing.
Something that amazing is almost supernatural.
It still amazes me how many religious comments we get in science stories. I guess people really feel threatened and have to defend their faith, even when no one is attacking it.
The more we find out about both the very large extremes (galaxies, universes, etc...) and the very small (quantum forces, particles, etc...), the less we even need God having any part of the creation or maintaining of the universe or any of it's parts at all. Simply put, in science, God is irrelevant. Science is based on what can observed, predicted, or based on theories consistent with what we have already proven to be true. Since God cannot be directly observed or have any actions accurately predicted, there is no place where religion can even fit in science.
If people want to believe and practice religion as a philosophy on how to live their lives and the simplicity of its explanations for complex questions comforts them, then more power to them. Religion serves a very beneficial and useful purpose in all cultures throughout the world. Common ethics and mores in our cultures and history are a big part of what makes us human and denying the myths we currently have would only be replaced by new myths anyway. Joseph Campbell was a strong believer in myths being essential to the human mind and civilization, and by myths he meant common beliefs and belief systems with no negative bias towards them, so religions by that definition are myths in the same way as we view ancient and other religions that don't fit into one's personal sphere of beliefs. One man's myth is another man's religion and visa versa.
So, religion and/or a core set of beliefs are truly a good thing. Just don't get them confused with science or try to map them to explain physical reality. Science is the evolving facts and theories of how things are and how they work and serves that function very well in the physical world we live in. Religion is a set of beliefs on how we'd like them to be and act and does very well in the non-physical and spirit realm that is outside of the realms of science. When applying both to the physical world, the two are and will always be in conflict as one in in motion and the other isn't, so keep your religion out of the science discussions and we'll keep science out of the theology discussions and everything and everyone will get along just fine.
Mike, you had me until this:
I'm just not so sure about this.
Saying "core set of beliefs," seems a little strong to me. When I see people say this, it usually means they are unwavering on their "core" beliefs, even when better or more sufficient data comes along. That's the whole problem with faith and/or religion. It's not a personal philosophy with these people .... It's a central construct of how they view reality (and in return, how they perceive themselves within the natural world). If it were in fact as warm and fuzzy as you highlight, then yes ... there would be no problems at all with people believing whatever the hell they wish. The problem is, beliefs actually have consequences (and not just for the believer).
The true irony (and really sad part) is that the natural universe we keep unraveling is so much more mind-boggling mysterious, numinous, transcendental, and beautiful than anything our religions could have ever imagined.
But here we are.
It's the 21st century and man has the ability to peer beyond the manmade heavens we've created for ourselves. We have the ability to look so much further ... but we can't even get past burning bushes and talking snakes. It would be pathetic if it weren't so sad.
Chad,
What I meant by "core set of beliefs" was more about how people are somewhat hard wired in their values by their upbringing and many factors while young. Those values can be very hard to change short of a traumatic experience. It seems to be a carryover from the knowledge passed on by parents to supplement natural instincts which seems like a good strategy for survival back in man's early evolutional development. Regardless it's one of the things that makes us human and that's not a bad thing in itself. Imposing your values on others or treating feelings as facts is an issue which it sounds like we both agree on.
I can seen how that could easily be misread, though.
I am not a scientist and will not pretend to be one here. It is not hard for me to believe however, that our galaxy, let alone the universe is simply too vast and the distances too great for any of us to have more than a rudimentary ability to describe the actual reality of it. Science is wonderful, but it does a better job describing life than it does explaining it.
Having said that, I personally find it exceptionally difficult to accept that all can be explained by the son of a carpenter born 2000 years ago in Bethlehem or that there is a big scorecard up in heaven which will determine eternal life or damnation. What is the real connection between a guy being crucified and my "sins"? I could go on.
The chances of any of us being here, in this galaxy, on this planet, at this time, the product of the fertilization of one egg by one sperm on that one occasion are astronomical. Life is short, experience as much as you can and enjoy as much as you can.
I observed my dog die and I watched my mother die, in many ways the events were very similar. In the end, we are animals. I don't think I existed before I was born and I don't think I will exist after I die. Makes sense to me.
Good stuff Mike.
For where we are in the evolution of human society, a belief system seems to be important. Older belief systems will give way to newer ones. My thinking is that most religions have been explanations of the unknown - the "Truth Tellers" as it were. The priests were the abitors what was truth and what was not. With the advent of science, this has changed. The truth tellers are the scientists and they are undercutting the old religions with every discovery. Science has become a kind of religion.
As for me, I am a Humanist - I believe in us, all of us. We are the only ones that will save us. Relying on an outside entity to save us abdicates our responsibility to each other.
Well John, you certainly know how to write a long post. But I have some questions for you.
How exactly does it matter that the moon has close to the apparent diameter of the sun?
Did you know that the earth's orbit ISN"T circular?
Why exactly would a planet covered in water NOT support life? Especially when there is a great deal of evidence life started there, and plenty of ocean based creatures seem to be doing just fine in it.
Why exactly do you need your definition of the 'right' amount of water, when there is evidence to suggest that mars could still support life?
What does the coastline of Europe have to do with anything? Especially when one considers how much technological innovation took place in China, Africa, the middle east, Polynesia and the new world?
What does the coastline of Europe have to do with the beginning of life on planet earth when europe did not exist then?
How exactly would the circulation pattern of water in the Mediterranean have any correlation to alien life (or 'sih-vuhl-azz-ay-shunz' as you put it) at all?
Did you know that the Sun also has a tidal effect on the earth?
Did you know that mercury also has an iron core AND a magnetic field?
What do you mean by the 'right' magnetism?
How are radioactive decay and magnetism related?
You said humanity is the center of the universe, how can there be a 'center' of infinite space?
What do you find so threatening about the idea of alien life?
In your opinion, why do so many creationists believe this:
and six literal days?
You mention that the moon is needed to keep the earth from tumbling on its axis. Do you have any evidence at all that this happens to any other planet ever?
How do the answers to these questions compare to your own statement of
?
Why do you make the statement that scientists have:
When Darwinism clearly does not?
If that's true, then it would follow that God created evil. Why? Why would god create psychopaths who are born without a conscience? For giggles? Because the actions of serial killers are worth more than the entire lives of their victims?
I really am interested in your answers.
Mike 4_____3
Not sure what you mean by that.
As far as attacking faith the first post having anything to do with faith was an attack.
#1.2
Of course those that are the attackers like to think it is the defenders that started it.
As your attack shows:
Science is a belief system just as Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Theosophy, Etc.
Science looks at EVIDENCE and draws a conclusion based on their particular belief system.
For instance evolution is based, from it's very beginning, on the observation certain creatures often have similar characteristics.
From this observation we get the theory of Common Descent. It has become the way of explaining why man and monkey seem so similar, we must have had a common ancestor. There couldn't be any other reason.
Looking at the same EVIDENCE a religious viewpoint would say God used the same tools.
The Camera Eye is evidence that flies in the face of Common Descent.
It is found in Humans and UNRELATED creatures such as the Octopus.
COMPARE THE EYES
We can know that it did not evolve from a common ancestor because it develops differently in both.
In the Octopus it begins at the epidermal layer and develops inward.
In the Human it forms from the neural plate, outward.
Since science so neatly tied common traits to a common ancestor this evidence caused some problems.
In other words the very cornerstone of evolution doesn't hold up.
Scientists believe in their belief system so much they had to invent a theory to explain this contradiction – Convergent Evolution.
It is the only way they can make it work because the evidence goes against the theory of common descent.
Meanwhile those of faith are able to stay consistent - God used the same tools.
For the Camera eye to evolve in one creature is unlikely.
For it to have evolved independently in another creature almost impossible.
But Wait, 3 or more times? Yep, the Camera Eye is also found in the Box Jellyfish.
Still the #1 problem with science is; where did everything come from?
It is impossible to make something physical from nothing. Science can't answer, where did it all come from.
You can't get anything from absolute nothingness, especially 180,000,000,000 stars (from NOTHING?)
You really have no comprehension of how actual science works do you.
Additionally, you may not realize this, but humans and octopi are related.
Further, if (as you say) it is impossible to create something from nothing, where did god come from? Nothing?
JOregon
Do you guys take classes at spouting off scientific jargon that you don't understand .... and then learn to systematically attack the science you've just shown us all you know absolutely nothing about? I mean, it's fine if you don't get it, but to sit there and critique what you don't understand is a little strange, and quite telling to the observer.
It would be like me coming into a Christian blog and lecturing all the Christians on how Muhammad rode a white horse into heaven and played dice with JC while the angels sat and wept.
Huh!
Yes ... my sentiments exactly
>Face Palm<
YEP they are both animals.
In case it was too difficult for you to follow.....
When the EMBRYO grows the eye develops.
Since they develop in totally different directions, and methods, we know the camera eye was not the result of a common ancestor.
>Sigh<
You have no comprehension as to what God is, do you?
For physical objects to exist they must come from some kind of substance. Something has to be there.
God is SPIRIT and not subject to the laws of the physical universe.
I actually do understand the jargon....I just don't drink the kool-aid.
I was raised in a non religious family, focused on science.
I was an Atheist, taking advanced science classes, many years ago.
I don't have a closed mind - That is the difference.
Depends on which god you're talking about.
So what are you implying here? That it is impossible for an eye to evolve? Eyes never change? Evolution is impossible because some things that look or function the same aren't closely related? How closely related are a shark and a dolphin? You seem to be trying to disprove a 19th century understanding of evolution, while ignoring the entire discipline of genetics.
Further, you may not understand that with science, the GOAL is to be proven wrong. Once your hypothesis or theory is proven wrong, you get to figure out why. Leading you to knowledge that you did not have before. Science advances best when it finds errors in its own theories, because those errors allow you gain a more complete data set.
The conflict here is that you wish for a belief system that is not changing and can never be wrong. You mistakenly believe that if a scientist or scientific theory can be proven wrong once, then they are forever wrong about everything.
If tomorrow it turns out that Einstein or Newton were slightly off in one of their calculations, would that mean that both gravity and relativity do not exist because they did not have some sort of divine perfect error free theory the first time they ever tried to figure it out?
Why do I say all this? Because what you tried to posit as proof that the Theory of evolution is wrong is in fact ho-hum news of science working normally. Something minor didn't quite fit once... cool... then they figured out why, and science advanced. (or evolved, as it were)
So what you are saying is that if something is made of nothing, then it doesn't have to be made of anything and can then create something from itself. Which was nothing.
Therefore you are claiming that something was created from nothing. Otherwise, 'spirit' must be made of something and would thereby exist in the physical universe like you just said.
Does science currently have a better answer to the origin of the universe? Nope! But at least it doesn't try and explain it away with things that don't physically exist.
Science and faith are not mutually
exclusive; despite the perpetual zealotry of the supporters of one
over the other to make it so (as well demonstrated in this discussion
thread).
Many of history's greatest men and
women of science were, and are, possessed of strong religious faith.
Many of mankind's greatest religious scholars and philosophers have,
and do embrace science as a tool of better understanding.
The difference between these men and
women, and those whom practice denialism, is an open mind an a
willingness to set aside the arrogance of certainty in order to
study, and seek, and learn ...and be awed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
Denialism as directed at science, or
denialism as directed at faith, are distinctions without a
difference. Practitioners of each are equally arrogant, and foolish.
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
improved theory, is it then a science or faith?”
Charles Darwin
“A discovery in science, or a
new theory, even when it appears most unitary and most
all-embracing, deals with some immediate element of novelty or
paradox within the framework of far vaster, unanalyzed,
unarticulated reserves of knowledge, experience, faith, and
presupposition. Our progress is narrow; it takes a vast world
unchallenged and for granted. This is one reason why, however
great the novelty or scope of new discovery, we neither can,
nor need, rebuild the house of the mind very rapidly. This is
one reason why science, for all its revolutions, is
conservative. This is why we will have to accept the fact that
no one of us really will ever know very much. This is why we
shall have to find comfort in the fact that, taken together, we
know more and more.”
J. Robert Oppenheimer
“There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its
faithful adherents who will defend it to the death.”
Isaac Asimov
“The mystery of life is certainly the most persistent problem ever
placed before the thought of man. There is no doubt that from
the time humanity began to think it has occupied itself with
the problem of its origin and its future which undoubtedly is
the problem of life. The inability of science to solve it is
absolute. This would be truly frightening were it not for
faith.”
Guglielmo Marconi
“Society rests upon conscience, not upon science.... Society
lives by faith, develops by science.”
“Scientific studies have
strengthened my faith, strengthened it indeed to an extent that
no study besides could have effected.”
Henri-Frédéric Amiel
“Only a half-century ago, a Christian speaker, mistrustful of men of science
told them: 'Stop finally, and do not dig to hell.' Today, gentlemen,
reassured about the steadfastness of our unshakeable faith, we say:
dig, dig again; the further down you, the closer you come to the
great mystery of the impotence of man and truth of religion. So dig,
always dig: and when science has stuck its final hammer blow on the
bosom of the earth, you will be able to ignite a burst of light, read
furthermore the mind of God and contemplate the imprint of His hand.”
— Louis
le Chanoine Rendu
What, precisely, does this mean, anyway?
What is 'spirit'? You cannot define it any way which is conclusive, provable and verifiable, and which all people and societies and cultures everywhere would agree upon, therefore it is essentially meaningless.
The supposed existence of any sort of spiritual realm and any purported beings which might exist there, from Apollo to Zeus, Allah to Yahweh, Azmodeus to Beelzebub, gods to angels, devils to demons, bodhisattvas, avatars, titans, sprites, fairies, leprechauns, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and all the rest, is nothing but fanciful imagination and shared delusion.
You will, of course, reply, 'I know that the spiritual realm exists because I have faith and I can feel God's presence in my life', to which I say, phooey. You're fooling yourself. Get over it.
Why is it that morality, sanity and order drives us together and holds the peace, while denial, ignorance and chaos drives us apart and creates war?
Find these features in the universe and you will find God.
Keep an open mind an a willingness to set aside the arrogance of certainty in order to study, and seek, and learn ...and be awed. Denial-ism as directed at science, or denial-ism as directed at faith, are distinctions without a difference. Practitioners of each are equally arrogant, and foolish.
John-3078515 - The "bet' you propose is nonsense. Aside from that, if we had listened to people like you through history then science would've never even gotten stsrted because the explanation for everything would be that 'god did it'. No one knows if there is more life in the Universe but it's a pretty safe bet that there is, no matter whether you little magic book says it's there or not.
I sincerely do not know why people like you even waste your time with science news. Just bury your nose back in your majic bnook and it will answer all for you. Leave the thinking to people who aren't sheep.
Know what would be fantastic? To read an article like this and then have a rational discussion about the science of it, about the possibilities the discoveries bring to mind, about what else might be found, all without having the christians/religious fanatics pop up to tell everyone how these discoveries 'prove' their god is real and how any non-believers are fools.
OK, you believe, we got it. Keep it to yourselves because you are proving nothing to the rest of us. The babbling that John did was just...over the top, just to put it nicely. Your little magic book proves nothing, mankind is not the center of anything, and there likely IS other life in the Cosmos. Intelligent life is a bigger maybe but life is likely. Deal with it. And maybe your god actually created that life too, what the heck. Either way it's a safe bet he/it doesn't care too much about us.
Robert,
didja think I missed that Darwin quote the first time, so it might help if you repeated it, in bold print?
I have an open mind, and have had since childhood. I once believed in god, as I had been raised to, but as I actually began to think for myself, I realized that all of the things which I had been taught made absolutely no sense at all and that the so-called "personal relationship with Jesus" that I craved so much at the time was nothing but a lie. When your so-called savior contacts me directly, as he did Saul on the road to Damascus, I'll be ready to listen. Until then, I'll assume he's a much a myth as all the other dieties I listed above.
Have a good weekend.
The point is: The very cornerstone of evolution was an observation that different creatures shared certain traits. The reasoning was that they also must have shared a common ancestor. Here we have 2 creatures that did not share a common ancestor yet they have a common trait........ Wait for it...... Therefore sharing a common ancestor is not a requirement for having similar traits.
The similarity between a frog hand and a human hand is used as an example of evolution.
Why is it someone can't use the lack of similarity between the Human hand and the Horse hoof or the Bat wing as an example there was no evolution? Aren't we more related to these two than the frog?
Just because something looks similar it doesn't mean they are related.
I don't ignore Genetics. I do understand there is a difference between MICROevolution and MACROevolution.
Microevolution is what allows someone to create a Boxerdoodle or a Auss-Tzu. Because of microevolution Sickle Cell protects against Malaria. Because of microevolution we have a huge diversity of humans. Depending on where on earth you are, certain characteristics identify with that location - BUT WE ARE ALL STILL HUMANS. No one has evolved.
The Human Genome Project gathered samples from humans all over the earth. When studying samples from various isolated (possibly by as much as 200,000+/- years, by at least 125,000 years [according to scientists]) indigenous people it was discovered there was no evolution.
We are all equally Human, 99.9% of our DNA is shared between all humans.
Certainly there are adaptions, humans have about 25,000 genes. The average gene contains about 3,000 base pairs. Some people are short, some tall, some dark, some light, etc. In the end, no change has happened, we are all still the same – Human.
Even in the case “change is slow” it should have appeared somewhere in the DNA.
So while we can have no doubts about microevolution we have NEVER witnessed the creation of a new species. We have no proof of macroevolution.
No it is not. Too much money is involved. Showing error on little things is good. Showing error on the entire theory gets you labeled as a nut case and gets the full wrath of the rest of the cult.
Also Mikey
I can't define Spirit to you because it is outside of our universe. Limited minds seem to think that everything is right here, something we can see, touch, taste, feel, or some other way test the existence of.
God is outside of Science he is outside of our world. As a creator he doesn't need to make anything from anything he can simply command it to come forth.
God can't be proven unless he chooses to be known, just as macroevolution can't be proven.
As I said earlier, science and the various faiths are all belief systems.
When we die we will either find out there is a God, or we will know nothing. That is when the truth will be known (God) or not known (Science).
Everyone have a good weekend OK.
Maybe the sky will be clear so we can all look at those 160 billion stars and just wonder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjzJNab3P1Q&feature=youtu.be
Thanks Tom and Lyn
Here is another. This one is kind of special, hope it hits you like it did to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74IsySs3RGU
REPLY: Mike, I didn't repeat a Darwin quote but rather repeated my own words of admonition of the foolishness and arrogance of "certainty" about either science OR faith, rather than having an open mind and a willingness to learn instead of simply opposing and seeking to discredit.
Maybe you didn't miss the comment (and thank you for thinking I was quoting Darwin), but judging by your continuing posts espousing your certainty ... you clearly did miss the point.
Absent the clouding effect of zealous denialism -- of either science or faith -- you and others would see that I was arguing for neither, but defending both.
You have a good weekend too, Mike. :)
Kyle
The very first post having anything to do with God or religion was an attack against God and religion.
That was the whole reason I made any post at all.
Even at that on my posts I don't say science can't be right, only that science hasn't proven that it is. On the other hand many of the science belief seem to need to shout out "God doesn't exist" - fear maybe?
There are lots of questions about what many consider to be absolute scientific truths.
Not all that long ago many were still claiming as fact that birds evolved from Theropod Dinosaurs, even though we knew way back in the 90's that was not true. That is not a faith viewpoint that is a science viewpoint.
What I brought to the table is that science is a belief system. That seems to make people very defensive for some reason.
REPLY: 'JOregon', your statement is not consistent with current science. Modern mainstream paleontology asserts, the science supports, and recent studies have conclusively shown that birds are actually the descendants of small non-flying theropods. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/theropoda.html
So, who are the "we" who "knew way back in the 90's that was not true"?
Are you expressing an opinion?
If so, it sounds a lot like 'certainty' expressed in order to supplant science with faith, and undermine the former as a viewpoint or belief system in order to build-up the latter as definitive and absolute.
Certainty of things which cannot be proved, and of which there is not a thread of physical evidence is arrogant and foolish; as is dismissing that which can be proved and of which there is bountiful physical evidence, merely because it is at odds with preconceived beliefs. That's denialism.
Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, except in the minds of zealots.
Yep, that is what got the ball rolling as it were. You are correctly labeling it past tense. You keep calling it a 'cornerstone' of the Theory of evolution. Which it isn't.
Surprise! Welcome to the mid 20th century. While you are trying to construe this somehow as evidence against evolution, it isn't. This is why I mentioned sharks and dolphins. The funniest thing about your misunderstanding is the fact that this is actually evidence IN FAVOR of the Theory of evolution.
I am glad you at least can see what you call 'micro-evolution' Now, take micro-evolution, and add geologic time. Try to visualize one million years.
For that matter, while you are visualizing one million years, why are there zero fossilized modern human remains from one million years ago? or ten? how bout 500 million years ago? a billion? 3 billion? still no fossil evidence of modern humans. If species are unchanging, where is the evidence of this?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A prerequisite of this evidence is that it not be founded on assertions of things which do not physically exist.
What?
So I guess scientists are the ones who control all the money in the world, it certainly has nothing to do with those folks in banking and politics...
Hypothetically, if tomorrow there was irrefutable evidence found that the earth is 6,000 years old, do you think every scientist and teacher would lose their jobs? Do you think all scientific research would cease? Do you think every college in the united states would shut it's doors? Imagine the explosion of new research grants.
Except again, you do not understand what evolution means. Nor has there been any population of humans which have been completely sexually isolated from the rest of humanity for 100k years.
Also a question: Why is it that native americans had about a 95% death rate in response to old world diseases?
Because again, you do not actually understand the Theory of evolution. The lack of similarity between a human, horse and bat is an example of how evolution causes groups to diverge over time from a common ancestor. The proof that they are related is in the genetic materiel, and also the fact that they are all mammals. You can't use it as proof against evolution, because it is proof OF evolution.
This right here is very telling. These claims are in direct contradiction to what you had previously asserted 2 paragraphs up. If there were 'no changes' then how would we be able to tell the difference between populations? The changes are there, they are slow, and they are in the DNA.
Except they aren't. In fact science and faith systems aren't even in competition with one another. Your problems seem to stem from trying to dress your beliefs up with clothes of logic. This is where you fail. I do not care what sort of faith you have, nor do I believe you should not have it, but faith has no business using logic. Faith and logic are what are in fact inimical, NOT faith and science. Logic is one of the foundations of science, but not religion, this causes much confusion.
If you wish to believe in your own definition of what god is, then by all means do so. I do not wish to deter you from this. In fact, if it helps you sleep at night, then please continue to believe in god. Just remember to keep it firmly in the realm of fantasy where it belongs, because you can not mix reality with fallacy and expect the result to be anything but fallacy.
Yet another false comparison. Further, there is a great deal more evidence on the books for 'macroevolution' than there has ever been found for god. In fact there is far more empirical evidence over a much greater timeframe for 'macroevolution' than there is for the existence of a historical figure named Jesus Christ. Additionally much of what was historically touted as proof of god's existence has been proven wrong.
Oft quoted, but it bears repeating: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Trying to claim a deity exists which by your own admission does not physically exist does not logically work.
Congratulations, you have bumped up against a fundamental limitation of all knowledge. If there is no proof of something's existence, then as far as science and rational knowledge are concerned, IT DOES NOT EXIST. This is not 'limited minds', there is a concrete limit of things which are actually knowable.
also:
Ok, Cool. What was before that? Where did god come from? What commanded god to come forth?
If God is to mean anything concrete, then He must be part of (or all of) the information, the physical laws that are superimposed over all energy transformations.
Consciousness is not information but rather manifestations of the state of mind. Although we are aware of these manifestations we cannot think of the billions of events that constitute the state of our mind at any given point in time.
We cannot rule Him out because we don't have a unified theory and the theory of everything is conditional to the unified theory.
So, I disagree with Dr Hawking, we still need God to explain our equations.
Robert the Bold
The titles from below are also the links.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links
ScienceDaily (June 9, 2009)
Bird-From-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 9, 2010)
The more we know the less we know.
REPLY: 'J', I couldn't agree with you more. It seems a significant number of things I learned in school as "absolutes" have since been challenged. I guess one way of thinking about that is it increases the enjoyment of learning and "continuing to dig."
I had the opportunity to attend one of professor Rubens lectures in Corvallis a couple of years ago, and it was fascinating. As is his 'evolving' theory (pun intended) about bird origins/descendency. I suppose time will tell; but at this time his group of professional converts is not all inclusive. Many, or most, are still challenging his assertions.
This was my point when I responded to your comment, stateing as fact that "we knew way back in the 90's that was not true." (that birds evolved from Theropod Dinosaurs) That statement is not consistent with current science and mainstream paleontology.
That is not to say that professor Rubin's theory might not eventually be shown to be absolutely difinitive, and universally accepted. But he's a long way from that acceptance at this moment in time (much less universal acceptance of this alternative theory 20+ years ago.
But point remains the folly of "certainty", in science and/or faith. Especially "certainty" about things which cannot be proved. And your own previous comment that "the more we know the less we know" would appear, on its face, to concur. Have we found a parting satement of agreement and consensus?
Regards, Robert
Robert
Many years ago I took a Psychology class from a pioneer in perception, Robert Leeper.
You may be familiar with his study on the Old Woman/Young Woman drawing, originally done by W. E. Hill.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OC3YXrKwfi0/SzfiiMtFi-I/AAAAAAAAAAg/s5-bsO2THAM/s1600-h/woman01.jpg
Leeper did a study in which he quickly presented one of two variations of the image to various subjects.
Image 1 was a Young woman.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OC3YXrKwfi0/SzfjBVtSuPI/AAAAAAAAAAo/R4W06mgKNl8/s320/woman02.jpg
Image 2 was an Old woman.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OC3YXrKwfi0/SzfjLKZWyOI/AAAAAAAAAAw/XEjUevV5F-c/s1600-h/woman03.jpg
Those that first viewed the young woman saw a young woman when viewing Hill's picture.
Those that viewed the old woman saw an old woman in Hill's drawing.
That is very much the hurdle we all have when viewing the world around us. Our perceptions are formed by what we have seen and/or believed in before.
It wasn't easy for me to accept that there could be a God, I was an atheist raised in a very nonreligious family. Professor Leeper opened my mind to the possibilities of other realities.
My big complaint on this topic is those that assume that these scientific studies have proven there is no God. They loudly claim God is not real. Such closed minds sadden me actually.
I understand how and why they see the world the way they do, what they don't understand is those of us with faith view the exact same information as an affirmation of the power of God.
Perception. Old woman/Young woman.
This is the same roadblock Rubin is up against. More and more scientists are beginning to see his young woman but it is hard not to see the old woman they are familiar with.
Take Care
For those of you who seem to keep confusing science and faith, let me reiterate:
There's a huge and resounding difference between "faith" in religions and "beliefs" in science.
Faith is the core opposite of belief, as it objectifies the very nature of evidence. Most religionists will tell you, it's not that they have faith because they've been exposed to a myriad of evidence to provide proof/reassurance within their claims. On the contrary ... what many will tell you is that they hold true to their positions despite of counter-intuitive or contradictory evidence. And in some cases, because of it.
This is simply comparing apples with oranges. Faith is a poisonous, pseudo-rational state-of-being mascaraing as a virtue. When someone says they have faith, they are basically saying they are willing to believe in just about anything (regardless of the evidence, or lack thereof).
In science, sure, we can talk about beliefs. But that's still slightly misleading. I don't "believe" in scientific persuasion, I research and study the evidence and come to acceptance within my own terms of that understanding. When better and more accurate data comes along ... well, that means I need to readjust my thinking and reevaluate which evidence is still relevant and which evidence has become obsolete or found to be inaccurate. But, that's what science does (and why it's not faith). It follows the evidence and appropriates its findings within that of its user's "beliefs", or understanding of said evidence.
I think Franklin summed this position up rather perfectly:
This type of positioning is the abject antithesis of "faith", and shouldn't be confused otherwise.
When I hear people say: "both sides have faith and zealots" ... I really want to just scratch my head. What are you talking about?
We wonder, "Where did it all start?"
Those that believe in science have FAITH that science will find the answer. They have FAITH it was from some kind of natural phenomenon, even though there is neither evidence or science to support ANYthing coming from nothing.
It is your belief system, an ideology.
When we compare the human eye and the octopus eye you have FAITH that science has an explanation.
When I compare the two I BELIEVE it points to a creator, which I have FAITH in. It is EVIDENCE of a creator, just as the entire universe is evidence of a creator.
Something from nothing cannot be done by science. You lack evidence.
Something from a creator that always has been can be done. The creation is evidence.
The problem is you want an explanation of a Being, above and beyond our small world, in terms you can understand. - Sort of like a dog trying to figure out how you get food to come out of a can.
{sigh}
I guess that's going to have to be your little secret then huh?
As many have already pointed out, there is evidence for this. And, the evidence is constantly growing. On the quantum level, we have evidence of particles popping in and out of existence all the time from nothing. In fact, Lawrence Krauss just wrote a book on this very subject. Does science have all the answers? Of course not. Nor does it claim to. But for you to sit there and blatantly ignore the evidence and answers for the things that we do have … well, then your credibility will continue to dwindle my friend.
Leaving aside for a moment your very poor understanding of evolution, let's talk about your creator. Is this the same entity that designed poor eyesight? How come I need glasses? If my eyes were divinely envisioned at the hands of a master builder of epic proportions ... why have they failed?
How about wisdom teeth? Why did he "create" jaws that are two small for the teeth we eventually grow? In evolutionary terms, I can already explain this to you in relatively simple terms. And, we have fossil evidence to prove these "beliefs" to be so.
How about birth? Why are so many women unable to give natural birth due to a narrowing of the pelvis? This is intelligent "design"? Again, I have the answer to this question from my understanding of evolution.
While we're at it, why not look up "vestigial organs" and come on back with a nice long list of "creation" answers to these questions?
Hymm.
So, I believe in a natural world where I am a natural construct of that world. An observation that all of science provides evidence for, and can substantiate.
You believe you were specifically designed by a creator with a specific purpose. Not only that, but you believe this creator authors books, has an opinion on what you do in the bedroom and doesn't want you to eat shellfish?
And I'm the "dog looking for an explanation?" Your beliefs would have essentially fit right in with the tribal people that first invented them.
Have fun with that.
-->Sigh<--
There is always something.
Are your brilliant scientists unaware of gravity?
Gravity is something.
Light is something.
Cosmic rays are something.
Air is something.
Vibrations are something.
There are lots of somethings.
Because man failed.
You should read the bible sometime. There you will learn about Adam and Eve who were created in the image of God. While they lived in obedience to God they would never die. Their bodies would never fail. No illness, no infirmities.
They chose to disobey. So now the human race dies, now our bodies are less than perfect. At first though men did live for many many years, then our lives became shorter. Certainly genetics has changed man. Microevolution has altered our bodies.
I eat shellfish all the time. Actually this whole statement is full of misinformation, though I can see why you might have it. There are a lot of MEN claiming to know what God wants but they usually only picking and choosing from the bible what fits their doctrine.
The old shellfish etc. laws were put into place because they were a shadow pointing to our need for Christ.
Colossians 2:16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Colossians 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
The bible speaks of doctrines of devils. It includes those that command us to keep away from certain meats. But nothing is prohibited.
1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
That is an old and tiring argument made by people that don't know the bible.
The bible doesn't limit what you do with your spouse. So I am going to guess you are going to go on a Gay tangent here.
When speaking of homosexuality the bible does call it a sin - but it is a sin a person is born with. This goes back to the fall of man, we are born less than perfect.
The bible expressly commands us to NOT point our fingers at others, again teachings of MEN have taken the wrong path.
When the bible points out sins, as in Deuteronomy, it is directed at the Jews. God was speaking to Moses on how the Jews were to behave. The historical Jews were a picture of everyone that is ever to be saved. Sin demand payment, the payment required is eternal death. That is why we need Christ he paid the price for those he came to save. In heaven all sins and frailties are gone.
No, we are all as far below God as a dog is below man.
I am a male. I can have some idea of what a woman feels, but I will never give birth. There are differences between the sexes that confound both sides.
How much more between man and God.
When we become saved we are closer to God, by quite a bit. But we can never fully comprehend Him. That is why I know I cannot explain anything in a way that you can understand.
All I ask is that you members of the science cult (tongue in cheek), quit proclaiming there is no God. You can't know that for certain, so it makes me wonder why you need to say it.
Why do you feel compelled to make such a claim? What are you afraid of? Do you think if you repeat it enough it will be true?
Why not be tolerant of peoples beliefs?
Couple of weeks ago, there was this article about a ban on pit bulls in some midwest town. The reason why it was a story was because a retired law enforcement officer had to give up his service dog since it was a pit. Luckily, a court rule it was a violation of the ADAAA to force people to give up there service dogs.
Anyways, most of the posts derided the the actual ban, giving anecdotal evidence (be it first hand or in many cases hearsay). They say it just showed ignorance of the breed, that they are good natured, that it's bad owners that cause the problem, etc etc. There were a few posters who were on the other side of the fence, mostly giving the same kind of arguments. I personally, never got into the debate nor is the actual debate relevant to this post.
What caught my attention was a particular person arguing...not necessarily for the ban, but the reasoning behind it. He was giving rather logical, thought out arguments in his posts in what was a storm of rather emotional posts. He cited a few sources, gave statistics, put some thought behind his arguments and put forth rational points.
The people he was arguing with never bothered to support their arguments, didn't do research, didn't even understand how to put forth a rational response. He urged them to find anything to the contrary to what he said. They didn't, and on top of that they argued tangents, non arguments, put words into his mouth, deflected, never actually addressing what he said. He called them on it but it didn't do any good, he just got more of the same.
He was rationally arguing his position, giving supporting evidence, used deductive reasoning, and provided a fairly logical train of thought. The rest weren't.
What I find sad is this, on this thread, that same person is making the exact same mistakes as the people he was arguing with on the other article. Strawman arguments, tangents, deflection, lack of research, some rather illogical train of thoughts, not addressing valid points, arguing on belief alone, etc etc.
I wish people were more consistent. But, emotional topics cloud peoples' judgements, just like the people who love pit bulls. It's hard to explain to people who are emotionally invested why they could be wrong, as far as they are concerned, they believe they're right, almost at a fundamental level regardless of any arguments to the contrary put forth.
But such is our life I suppose.
Mitchell
Mitchell
I appreciate your observations on the dog issue.
I have a couple of questions.
Please give an example.
Meaning?
How so?
On what? I have brought up many scientific points such as the Human Genome Project, Theropod Dinosaurs/Bird link, etc.
Please understand my point has never been to prove God or disprove science, it has been to show BOTH are viable belief systems. Both should be respected. My response has been to the intolerance of the science minded to attack God. To declare Him dead.
If you are confused I would gladly try to help you understand.
Such as......
Apparently you were not reading correctly.
How does "belief" fit in that?
And the information on Theropod Dinosaurs:
How do you figure that relates to "belief"?
I would suggest you reread, this time unbiasedly.
Normally I would let my posts speak for themselves, but in defense to Mitchell, it is telling that you did not bother to address any of my points, but instead chose to repeat yourself, and pretend my post did not exist.
Further, if you are going to post an article which you believe is evidence in your favor, you should probably ensure it doesn't counter the very points you are trying to make:
See? Right there in the article it states that birds were evolving, No where in the article did it come even remotely close to saying 'evolution is impossible, therefore god did it'.
And really, bringing the bible into this is not going to help your case with rational thinkers. In the bible, it is written that jesus himself cautioned against listening to those with only one witness. The only witness for the bible, is itself.
As for magic folk tales, why the bible but not the koran? Why not buddha or confucius? Why not the oldest extant religion of hinduism? Can you give me ONE reason outside of what the bible says? Any sort of rational reason to believe the bible at all?
I realize at this point you have a lot of sunk emotional cost in your particular fantasy (beginning with your parents, obviously), and you will predictably ignore or gloss over rational arguments to the contrary, (probably while humming some hymn or reciting some scripture) but leave the logical arguments to science where it belongs, because right now, there is no real evidence at all for god. None.
So far the only halfway credible complaint you've really tried to lodge against evolution boils down to 'but nothing is real! it's all fantasy!' If you're going to play that philosophical card, they I play solipsism, and the only way off that island is through the gates of logic.
Personally I find it immoral to attempt to hoodwink others with pseudoscience and logical fallacies, even if it is 'for their own good' or because 'it feels so right!'.
It is foolish and potentially fatal to close ones mind before all is known.
JOregon
Wait ... so you're a biblical literalist? As in ... you believe the bible to be an accurate, historical account of creation?
Okay.
That's really all you needed to say.
My friend. Sophisticated theologians who spend their whole lives actually studying your faith don't even believe that.
By the way, before you throw out anymore research by The Human Genome project, you may want to research Francis Collins. While he's a Christian, he'll be the first to tell you the same as all of us. When you don't understand evolution and falsely rail against it (like you've been doing for the past 15 posts). You really do limit your credibility.
Trip
I am sorry if you were offended that I didn't address your post.
It was long and to reply would have taken more time than I had available. I worked Saturday, then spent a good deal of Sunday with my Granddaughter.
By Monday I really wasn't all that motivated.
Quite honestly it is a bit frustrating to deal with you since you tend to misconstrue things a lot, such as your - humans and octopus are related comment - without looking at the mechanics of how the eye developed.
For your reference, and to keep Mitchell happy:
Here is the LINK
Even have a PICTURE of the whole process
I did address some of your questions in other posts even though they were not directed specifically at you.
Now to make you feel better let me address your post.
You build a building based on the cornerstone. It is the reference point from which you build.
That observation is necessary for the theory of Common Descent. It is also what comes into play when fossils are found and a scientist tries to fit it in to the lineage of as creature. For instance a jawbone is found that looks similar to a human [ancestor] and it is considered to be part of the human chain, simply by appearance.
That has never been the point.
My point has been:
I am very disappointed in why so many of the science freaks feel a need to declare God dead. I have simply gone out and shown science is hardly certain of many things. As you point out even the cornerstone was faulty.
Science, like the worlds religions, is based of beliefs. We see MICROevolution - which allows for adaption, jaw changes, skin color, Sickle Cell disease, hair color, etc. and we make a GIANT leap to say that means MACROevolution (creation of a species) has taken place.
With a Nod to Mitchell:
LINK
Dr. Maciej Giertych,
@ Oxford a BA and a MA in forestry.
@ Toronto a PhD in tree physiology.
@ the Agricultural University of Poznań he received his Habilitation degree. It is an advanced degree above a PhD.
Now retired he was the former head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland.
Whether you agree with him or not is immaterial, what it does show is there are experts that see the difference. The Theory of Evolution is not a proven fact. Just because 'A' is true it doesn't mean 'B' is true.
Still too many questions to declare God dead. (just so you remember my point)
We have done that with fruitflies. Because of their short lifespans and quick breeding cycles we have been observing them for the equivalency of a Million Human years. No evolution has taken place. We have even tried to help nature by selective breeding and radiation.
Don't know. Smaller population?
And yet just because creatures adapt and change - AND STILL REMAIN THE SAME SPECIES - science makes the extraordinary claim; adaptability means a creature can become a new species.
LOL
TwoThree things.1. Who said scientists control all the money? (2. it is your obvious twisting of what is said that I find frustrating [why I didn't respond to you earlier])
3. I answered this when I replied to Robert:
There are grants to be earned, professorships to be made, don't pretend money isn't involved.
Hypothetically, if tomorrow there was irrefutable evidence found that the earth is 6,000 years old, do you think every scientist and teacher would lose their jobs?
No if it was irrefutable they would then try to figure out why they were so wrong.
I'm not in agreement with Bishop Usser.
We have about 5,000 years of written history. That is as far back as any dating system can be accurate. Usser's system makes the flood date not workable. There are other bible based dating systems.
I don't agree with Harold Camping much, but his dating system is probably more accurate. One thing I found interesting was the date for Peleg's time when the Earth was Divided (continental drift). It matches up with the Mayans date for the beginning of this age. I imagine if your continent had just been ripped apart you might say it is a new age too.
That brings us to your million year old fossils. You are aware that our dating methods are just theories, right?
We date objects that we know the age of (up to about 5,000 yrs ago) and work out a formula to date older objects.
Because of the nuclear bombs of the 20th century the future will have problems with such dating systems. Who knows what kind of cosmic event happened in the ancient past. Besides God can create a world to appear as old as he wants.
Somewhere I remember reading about certain tribes being isolated by over 100,000 years. I don't remember where I read it, so for know I will say I am probably in error, my memory isn't as good as it used to be. Age.
Microevolution. There was never a need for them to develop an immunity.
That is your viewpoint. That wasn't actually my thought it was Dr. GIERTYCH's thought.
One of the things I find frustrating is the need to repeat what I have said.
I have said this before and I will probably have to say it again.
MICROevolution is very real.
MACROevolution has NEVER been shown.
Haaaaa Haaaaaa Haaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa Whew Haaaaa haaaaa haa haha
Yet so many - (as I said my reason for posting) - have declared God dead.
#1.2 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:13 PM PST
#1.24 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:14 PM PST
#1.33 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:54 PM PST
#1.37 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:15 PM PST
#1.44 - Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:45 PM PST
And many many many many more.
Oh, faith is very logical - chuckle.
Sorry you don't understand that. Just because YOU don't see the logic doesn't mean it isn't there.
"I do not wish to deter you from this."
"keep it firmly in the realm of fantasy where it belongs"
You are a lying joke. Can you please not speak out of both sides of your mouth?
"In fact, if it helps you sleep at night, then please continue to believe in god."
I was raised in a very nonreligious family. We went to church on Easter, just because you did. I had great parents, lived in a comfortable home. Had a good education and a solid foundation in literature, art, history, and sciences of all kinds. My father was a Professor, and one of the kindest most selfless people you could ever meet. He was also an agnostic.
My mother was warm friendly and artistic. When I grew up I was surprised that so many people had difficult childhoods.
That should answer that issue in your other post.
I was blessed. I loved my sins, I have never had to deal with addictions (maybe coffee), health, or great pain. I didn't turn to God because I needed comfort or tradition. I wanted to know TRUTH, and was willing to explore all avenues to find it.
My biggest battles and pains came after I knew God, not before. God doesn't help me sleep better at night, so don't worry.
We have never observed the creation of a new species - macroevolution.
We should be able to observe the creation of a new species. It should happen all around us. Especially since this earth has been warming ever since we were up to our mountain peaks in Ice. Now we are warming at an alarming rate - why worry. We will evolve. Right?
The evidence is around us - The Universe.
The repeat usage of the camera eye.
The Duckbill in the Platypus and the Duck.
The fact you exist.
I could also go into the amazing hidden consistencies in the bible that couldn't be known to individuals given credit for writing the bible, but this is taking too long as it is.
Because you do not see the evidence does not mean it isn't there.
Not rational minds, just science oriented minds. Rational minds look at the world and know the possibilities. You prefer to keep your mind in a box. Sad.
God always has been. Time was created by God. Before there was time there was God. - I don't expect you to be able to comprehend that.
Now you can see why I was not enthusiastic about responding to your post. I have wasted a good part of my day on this keyboard, but it is cold and rainy so it is a good time to do so.
Chad
YOU asked the questions, and made uninformed statements, about God. I gave you the biblical answers so that you don't have to make a fool of yourself in the future.
Remember?
Catholics are Christians too, they also believe in evolution.
Lots of people claim Christ, you really can't lump them all together.
It's true, it was. It was longer than I had realized, and I understand. This one probably will be also, so I apologize in advance.
Which is why I called it a a bad analogy, and not reflective of the current body of knowledge.
My point to this is, if it is a belief system, then it isn't science. You are making a false correlation. Objective knowledge is independent of a particular individual's beliefs. Faith based systems and science aren't in competition with one another, because they deal with different questions.
There is a difference between declaring god dead, and not finding evidence for the conjecture. I know you will say that all evidence is entirely subjective again, but that belongs in philosophy and not science.
Would that be a bad thing? Isn't that the point?
Well, yes. In as much as the Theory that states that the laws of physics are unchanging throughout the universe's history. There may in fact be radiological errors due to relativity or 'dark matter' (there's even evidence for this!), but they are extremely small. Also it is worth mentioning that these are theories with a capital T rather than lowercase t theories.
Again, why no human fossils with the dinosaurs? Even if the entire understanding of atomic Theory is wrong, why aren't modern human fossils all over the place, or for that matter, why isn't T-rex in my backyard? Did they sin and god had to kill them all? Only humans are sacred so it's ok to just exterminate everything else?
I could further point out that your theory that evolution is impossible is 'just a theory' except the difference being that there is no objective evidence for it (no, the camera eye isn't evidence, I already explained why), which lowers it into the realm of a mere hypothesis.
One more point, you mentioned in another post that
Except it's pretty commonly accepted in science that the origin of the universe may be completely unknowable. Again, there is a limit to things which can be known, currently there are limits to human knowledge. Science does not hide this fact, and in fact openly touts it. Science does not state that god cannot exist, it merely states that so far, there is no reliable evidence, therefore, as of now, god does not exist. Bring real evidence, this will change, and science will soldier on.
And again, if as you say, there is no evidence for something coming from nothing, then it disproves your reasoning behind god's existence. Saying 'god did it' just moves the origin question back one generation.
I would posit that there could be 100k years difference between certain genes, but not tribes completely isolated geographically. Especially when you consider Australia was peopled ~30k years ago, and most of the pacific had a thriving trade system before the 'white man' showed up. Even tribes in Papua New Guinea (which is one of the most difficult areas of the world to traverse over land) have neighbors. Neighbors whom they find attractive. Humans like to have sex, and they have shown such a proclivity for it that they occasionally do not respect the bounds of species, much less geography.
That's fine, having a PhD doesn't automatically mean you are infallible. Further, after reading that link, all I can say is wow. That is some terrible pseudoscience. Logical fallacies abound, and I could make this post pages longer just on that website.
Good for them. I am not them, MY reason for posting was in response to your posts (and a certain John fellow who seems to have left town), and I believe my point that faith and logic are inimical still stands. Certainly there is a great deal of circular logic, magical thinking, and other logical fallacies employed in faith based reasoning, but I have yet to see rational thought in use.
Except I truly don't. Belief in fantasy has demonstrably good psychological effects for people. Keep in mind I am not prejudiced to the the type of fantasy here, whether it is islam, buddhism, christianity, hinduism, WoW, zombies, or star wars. I find no joy in taking away someone's crutches, (crutches are amazingly useful when you need them) but the fact remains that there has yet to be any demonstrable proof that any of those fantasies are real. Reality + fantasy will always = fantasy. You believe in god, good for you, all the wishful thinking in the world doesn't make it true. Again, why christianity vs any other religion?
You don't expect me to comprehend circular logic with no evidence? It's very likely that I am not as intelligent as you, (I'm not nearly as smart as I wish I were) but I know logical fallacy when I hear it.
God could have also created the world the moment we read this article, with all of our memories up to that point being programmed in. God could be a computer program left over from a previous universe. Judging by the amount of killing done in god's name, god could actually be satan or just a huge prick. The story of the garden of eden makes god read like an entity that abhors consciousness. Again, we are edging back into 'nothing is real' territory, and claims which are not falsifiable. Which are not under the purview of science.
Again. Geologic time. Evolution usually takes great leaps after a great die off. According to the fossil record, this type of thing takes tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and many generations of complete isolation. If humanity has recorded history over 500k years, there will be plenty of observed occurrences by then. Not only that, but evolution does not state that one day a chicken hatched out of a velociraptor egg. This is not how it works.
But as for your assertion that macroevolution is impossible, why are there domesticated plants which can not interbreed with their origin species? What do you call that? Extreme microevolution?
And why do you think species are dying off at an alarming rate in response to that? Remember that whole survival of the fittest thing? Remember, there is no forward or backward when it comes to evolution. There is either success or death.
An addendum:
And don't you pretend that money isn't involved in christianity, televangelism and 'creation science'.
Harold camping is a new classic one, I'm glad you let me reference him.
ignore ... ignore ... enter ... ignore ... delete ... enter ... damn it ... delete ... ignore ... enter ... ignore ... enter ... Jesus they're still there ... ignore ... ignore ...
JOregon
Dude, you believe Tyrannosaurs and goats were hanging together on a giant boat. There's really nothing else to say, and saying anything else would be a waste of time.
While reading these posts, a friend of mine happened to email me the winners of the Darwin Awards. After reading them I need no more proof that natural selection is at work and the factuality of evolution is confirmed.
This question answers itself.
First and foremost, humans are apes. We are highly evolved primates.
It's not difficult to find the human-ape connection through the fossil record. You're simply using the common creationist mistake of asking: "Well where's the missing link"? All the while completely ignoring the point above, as well as the fact that they are all 'missing links'. Here's a hint ... so are you. Less you think we are done evolving? We are not.
The "why would god create something so similar to man" question is quite odd. There are myriads of species on Earth that share almost identical cosmetic similarities ... yet are vastly different. Both on the molecular level, as well as anatomical. There are also species that look strikingly similar to each other, but are more closely related to us than that of their aesthetic contemplatives.
Can you source the question you referenced?
Trip
I had written a somewhat long reply only to lose it when the backspace key sent me back a page.
So a shorter one.
I never have said evolution was impossible. That was never my point.
My point was; neither belief is proven, therefore BOTH should be respected.
What got me into this foray is the attacks by you and others against faith based beliefs. Your arrogance that what you believe is right and anything else is "fantasy".
When you talk out of both sides of your mouth you drool, and it isn't a pretty sight.
Yes, there is objective knowledge such as the camera eye. It is factual it is real. We also know that it is found in different creatures that have no possibility of getting it from a common ancestor.
After that, conclusions are based on your belief system.
You view the evidence after viewing the picture of the young woman.
A creationist views the same evidence after viewing the picture of the old woman.
Questions? Review my post to Robert. #127.83 - Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:00 PM PST
Again, why no human fossils with the dinosaurs?
I answered that:
I really don't know so I am going to throw out a solution that is as good as any.
Most of the early earth was inhabited by dinosaurs. Humans were few and mostly isolated from these creatures. Therefore there will be more such fossils of dino's.
Why did the dino's die out? The world changed dramatically. The world before the flood was much different than after. If you follow the description in the bible it seems to say there was more moisture in the air, and under the earth. Both cut loose. That would collapse places in the earth and make the planet more susceptible to temperature extremes. Also the earth was lifted up creating mountains again altering the climate.
That is not a belief nor a doctrine it is simply presented as a possible solution - AS I SAID "I don't know".
He is a scientist. Not only was he the HEAD OF A GENETICS DEPARTMENT he was also on the editorial board of 2 international periodicals; Silvae Genetics, published in Germany, and Annales ses sciences forestieres published in France.
He has written over 150 scientific papers.
I suppose since he doesn't agree with your belief system that makes his a fantasy. (roll [camera] eyes)
I had hoped that by giving you my background you would understand that cliché is unfounded.
I could say the same for your belief system - if I wished to. You use science as a crutch so you don't have to think about the consequences of what you do in life. Not my belief, just an example.
Such stereotyping doesn't serve any purpose.
That is where I have really gotten to be so disappointed with you and many others here. While I am sure you would ask people to be tolerant of peoples sexual orientation, race, sex, appearance, culture, etc you have shown no tolerance toward Christians. I have heard bigotry, slams, and ridicule. Hypocrisy bothers me quite a bit - and yes I go after the religious hypocrites that condemn homosexuality. #1.42 - Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:39 PM PDT
Geologic time doesn't stop and go. It has gone on continuously. There have always been die offs. You should see new species popping up. They haven't. Going back to the Human Genome there are people, communities that have been separated for enormous time periods. There should be some kind of evolutionary change in the DNA. What they found is an Aborigine, Pigmy, or Laplander are as much alike as two Scotsmen. There should have been some significant difference. 99.9% alike.
I have to go, running late and want to fire off one more post.
Chad
You asked/stated some very uninformed thoughts on God and biblical principles. I tried to help you out by explaining your misunderstandings.
That, apparently, got your panties in a wad.
Now you try to twist it all around.
I don't have time for preteen games. Bye, bye.
Besides I have a full plate for awhile.
This really sucks and I hate when that sort of thing happens. It has caused me grief also in the past, so I can sympathize. I think firefox has an option where you can retrieve such data.
The sum of your efforts to de-legitimize science so you can make claims that faith systems are on equal footing with rational thought are analogous to finding a wrinkle in your bed after you made it, declaring it unfixable, then throwing the bed away.
One field of thought has literally thousands of peer reviewed proofs, the other has statements like:
A statement which is followed by a conjecture where zero evidence (much less a singular proof and flies in the face of the established laws of physics), is presented.
Science deals in the realm of statements which are falsifiable. Religion does not.
At this point it has become obvious to me that you aren't understanding the philosophical distinction I am trying to illuminate, namely, that science and religion are fundamentally different categories. Most likely it is because I must be terrible at communicating my idea, and have failed to make it accessible to you.
The interesting thing with this statement is that I have yet to share any of my own personal beliefs. Personal beliefs which I admittedly have no objective evidence for, therefore do not espouse to others. Objective knowledge and logic cares not for personal belief. When dealing with sound logic, it matters not which mouth it comes from.
And yet, even though you claim you are not trying to disprove evolution, why do you continue to imply that this means that both creatures cannot have a common ancestor, or that 'science can't figure anything out either'? Simply because the eyes evolved differently, does not prove that the organisms in question did not share a common ancestor.
Another thing you are fundamentally missing here with the statement from a previous post that:
Is that appearance itself is a tiny piece of the puzzle of paleontology.
He is also not an authority in the fields you are trying to imply him in. You are using an appeal to a false authority. What is his PHD in? Here's a clue, it isn't biology. Trofim Lysenko also claimed to be a scientist, that doesn't mean he practiced actual science.
It wouldn't be a fantasy if he had actual peer reviewed proofs for the claims he is making. For example:
Is both hilarious and demonstrably false. Here he shows a complete basic misunderstanding of the Theory of evolution, and further does not cite any evidence for this claim.
Oh really? Where exactly did I posit that humans should behave without morals? When have I tried to make the claim that actions do not have consequences? Where did I state that science disproves the golden rule?
Noted.
And what of other faiths? I can't help but notice your continuing omission of anything to do with this, or any of my questions on the subject. Maybe if I repeat myself enough, you will finally tell me why christianity over any other faith. What was it during your 'search for truth' that led you to think christianity was true, and <insert any other religion> was wrong?
But not anything remotely resembling geologic time. Also, since we are talking about time again, what of tree ring data? What of tree data that precedes the invention of writing? What of data that independently verifies radiocarbon dating with an exceptionally small margin of error?
I too shall be gone for several days for business, but I plan to return. This has been excellent mental exercise. :)
Whoops! I used the wrong brackets and can no longer edit.
This:
What was it during your 'search for truth' that led you to think christianity was true, and was wrong?
Should read like this:
What was it during your 'search for truth' that led you to think christianity was true, and [insert any other religion] was wrong?
Ack! And now its back? Sorry for the extra post. Not going to use those brackets again
JOregon
Don't get mad at me just because your entire belief system is centered around myths and superstitions incompatible with modernity.
Yet no sign of intelligent life has ever been detected despite searching for signals for over 50 years.
correct ...even here
freddie, 50 years is such an incredibly short period of time to look for life that it's unsurprisng at all we haven't seen or heard anything. Also, maybe we're not looking the right way. Maybe our methods are flawed. Then again maybe we are indeed the only intelligent life forms in the galaxy. After all it had to start sometime, right? The odds of two races coming into sentience at just the right time and progressing at just the right level is so far beyond absurd that it's not funny. I think we're just not looking the right way. Either that or we're the only species that has curiosity as a trait and others don't really care or don't want to make themselves known.
Given that we've only had the tools to detect such signals for a short period of time, the chances that we'd detect something from another civilization in a remotely similar range of evolution to us is really really slim (probably approaching zero).
Look at it this way, humans have only been "civilized" for maybe 5000 years, while the Earth is a few billion years old. Our technology has advanced exponentially in the last 100 years, and will be crazy advanced in another 100 years from now (if we don't destroy ourselves before then). Any alien civilization is therefore very likely to be way more advanced than us, well beyond the margin of time it would take for their signals to reach us (hundreds or thousands of light years away). We may not even have the ability to recognize such advanced communications with our primitive radio dishes.
We've only been looking RF based communications so far. An analogy for you would be looking for communications on this planet based on smoke signals, not seeing any and thus determining there must not be any intelligent life.
A civilization doesn't have enough time from invention of radio to self-destruction by nuclear war or ecological catastrophe. Or until it doesn't have to use powerful radio transmitters for its own communication. Advanced communication technologies produce noise-like signals, and don't need high power.
I'd like to quote Douglas Adams ...
Saying:"there's no life out there" by simply using the miniscule sample-sizes we've conducted to date is like dipping a cup in the sea and saying that the ocean doesn't contain any fish.
50 light years is nothing. Also, the further the signal travels the weaker and more diffuse, so it's not like we can scan the galaxy with radio... not even close. And it's really only 25 light years we've covered, due to the equal amount of time it would take for the response to arrive.
It also assumes that an alien species would have the ability or desire to communicate via radio... that's a big if. Maybe there is life, but not that tech-savy... maybe they just haven't caught the signal. OR maybe they're listening intently, but don't want to talk??
What you say doesn't mean anything really.
Radio signals travel painfully slow. By the time anything we're sending out gets picked up, our sun will have already died. Same thing if we pick up a signal - it will be a planet's distant past.
Radio signals travel at the speed of light, the fastest speed we know. (not withstanding any current neutrino experiments.)
Maybe they don't want us to find them. If they have any sense at all, they will wait a while until we are much more evolved. What intelligent life would want to deal with us? With all the strife we cause each other, why would they want to?
Just let me know when/if you ever find anything. In the mean time, don't raise my taxes to fund your search. You and I know you are not going to find them. Peace out.
Define intelligent life...life as you know it?
CP from PA..................you da man!
Chad's my new best friend!
Miss_Diagnosed, much as I absolutely love Douglas Adams, his math is incorrect. If there are an infinite number of worlds, and not all of them are inhabited, there could still be an infinite number of inhabited worlds. His logic doesn't follow.
I am one of those with the SETI analyzer program on my computer. I am interested in SETI and the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere. However, less than 1% of the sky has been analyzed if I remember right. Kind of like looking at a parking lot in New York city and saying there is no cornfields anywhere.
I think based on the general tone of Adams writing that we can assume his tongue is firmly planted in his cheek.
(at least) Two possibilities, freddie t: Either we're alone...or our notions of 'signs of intelligent life' needs some work.
It's much too soon to be overly certain of either one...
MIss Scarlett,Worm Holes are the way to travel,radio waves are for cavemen
Well Byron... infinity divided by infinity is 1, so any other people you see are still the product of a deranged imagination :)
I need to learn to stop talking to myself ^_^
Early on in those 50 years we were limited to specific ranges of radio waves with fairly crude receivers compared to current technology. We've only really been listening for maybe the last ten years for signals that could take hundreds, thousands, or many more years to reach us and even then only if we are in the path of those signals.
I have no doubt that given enough time we will receive some interesting signals to pursue. The real question is what should we do when we do get a real message and will we be able to decipher it?
JOregon, Perhaps being firmly enthroned at the top of the top of the food chain has mitigated the necessity to evolve further. Natural selection is recognizing reality. We simply ceased adapting to the environment when we began to adapt the environment to us.
The speed of light is fast here on Earth, but not in the universe.
This is great, but,,, how do we get there.
Hitch-hike.
I'm not hopeful we'll figure that out within the next few generations. Clearly, any space travel at less than the speed of light will take way too long to get anywhere interesting (over 4 years at full light speed, and you'd come back to a far different earth (read up on some Einstein on that topic)). So until we figure something out that defies the laws of physics as we currently understand them, we not gonna get there.
There's a guide for that...
I seem to have misplaced my guide, but I do have a towel.
Warp factor 5, Sulu... Engage!
Via the Stargate located in Cheyanne Mountain! :)
"This is great, but... how do we get there?"
First of all, I think it is great that we have already detected hundreds of planets from star systems many light years away, with many thousands more to be detected in the next decade or two.
Sadly, we do not possess anywhere near the technology to travel to any of them within our lifetime.
It is a humbling fact that the fastest spacecraft we have yet launched (Voyager 1) 'speeds' out of our solar system at less than 40,000 mph. While this may appear to be very fast, to some, it would take it over 70,000 years at this speed to reach our nearest star (other than, of course, our sun), Alpha Centauri, a mere 4.3 light-years away. This is 600,000 times the distance from Earth to Mars (on average)...and we are anywhere from 10-30 years away from our first manned mission to the Red Planet. Sheesh!
Sigh...unfortunately, meaningful manned space travel is about as fast as congress passing legislation.
I hope they're not named Shoemaker-Levy 1 through Shoemaker-Levy 160,000,000,000
quantate
To bad it takes some groups 300 years to figure this out. Older groups knew this 1000 years ago Dogans etc.
160 billion is the bare minimum, in my opinion.
In such a short period of time, they've discovered planets hand over fist. The vast majority of those discoveries are large, tight-orbiting bodies, made using the transit method. The planets further out haven't even been "seen" yet, or haven't made multiple passes to be confirmed yet. But what about the smaller planets we can't detect? What about the planets that don't transit between us and the star we're looking at? We're not "edge on" with every solar system out there. Probably a low percentage of them, in reality. So in many cases, the transit method won't show anything being there anyway.
If we've detected as many as we have so far, it's just the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
I agree. And that's just the planets, there's surely a lot of moons to go along with them. I'm guessing most (all?) star systems have their own version of comets, asteroids and oort stuff as well.
Definitely.
IMHO, 1.6 for every star is lowballing it in a major way. That isn't even counting planets that got kicked out during system formation. My lowball guess would be 10 planets for every star not in a globular cluster.
Common sense pretty much dictates there to be more small planets than large ones just as there are more dwarf stars than super giants.
Just think, 20 years ago we didn't have any proof of planets around other stars. 90 years ago we did not have proof that there were galaxies other than the milky way. 400 years ago we thought Earth was the only planet in existence, and that it was the center of the universe. That's right, there have been europeans in the new world longer than we have had demonstrable evidence of other planets in our solar system.
400 years from now, if first world societies still exist, my personal belief is that we will have found undeniable proof of life's existence outside of our own solar system.
Based on what have definitively observed so far, it's probably safe to generalize from our own solar system's structure and assume that most other systems will be roughly similar... some large planets, some small. Many of the planets, especially the larger ones, having moons of their own.
The Solar System is not special, the Solar System is within the Norm.
My understanding is that there are more binary and tertiary systems than single star systems like our own.
And this is just in our galaxy. With at least 100 billion galaxies out there alien life is not just a mathematical probability it is a mathematical certainty. I look at sunsets now and wonder how many of billions of times that scene is being played all throughout the universe at that exact moment.
Baddog40
As a counter point I've often marvelled at the solar eclipses we see on earth. By random chance our moon is (almost) the perfect size to create totality but if you were anywhere else you wouldn't get the same effect. Venus doesn't have a moon (and the sun would appear bigger) and the moons of Mars are tiny compared to ours (and the sun would appear smaller). I consider it one of the phenomenon that we are extremely luck to experience here on Earth, and often wonder, along with how many planets out there have any life or intelligent life, is how many people on other planets have the chance to see a total solar eclipse?
Rory, the coincidental apparent size of the moon and sun, and the eclipse events which result from this is certainly rather amazing and is quite likely the original source of much religiosity.
We need to take care of this planet as we'll probably never get to any other one. They're simply too far away.
That's exactly what Christopher Columbus' wife said to him.
"Hey, meat-head, why are you sailing off to look for the "new world' when I need you to take out the garbage and mow the lawn? You don't have enough to do here, you got to run off to a new world?"
Where would that leave us?
...and then native-american civilizations got decimated. Just like it would happen to our civilization if aliens get here.
Alex - well, not to sound racist or anything... but a lot of the meso-American cultures believed in human sacrifice... not sure that I would want such a culture to thrive.
Brokinarrow, yeah, probably. But then, they also believed in some higher power that actually interacted with them in some meaningful way.
Hmm...that still happens today, unfortunately.
Brokinarrow
There is no shortage of human sacrifice, animal sacrifice and other disgusting behavior in the Old Testament of the Bible. Am I racist for mentioning that?
Brokinarrow-Do you know what European "civilized" societies were doing about the same time? Ever heard of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition? Most native cultures were fairly peaceful with occasional skirmishes with other tribes, plus occasional wars...people are basically the same everywhere. The point made was that a more advanced civilization invariably destroys one that is less advanced, whether intended or not.
Hawking is right, stay away and stop looking, we may get their attention!
Mark Brown, actually warfare was common and endemic. However it was not the same level of warfare that was typical in Europe or various parts of Asia at the time. The Aztecs required thousands of captives yearly for their sacrifices and were obtained through war. Slavery was common although more along the lines of slavery in Roman and Greek cultures than what was practiced in the USA. Pre-Columbian cultures were not the paradice you seem to think.
Too bad all of these suppositions and inspirations could not be funneled into the problems of farming, population control, disease control, education of all children, dental health, air pollution and a whole earth-sphere of things we COULD do something about.
I have never seen the point of reaching for the stars when the ladder is on fire.
Zack, you speak as if the two are mutually exclusive. There's no reason they must be.
And as always, the answer to 'far away' is 'go faster.'
Human sacrifice was also practiced in Europe, though not as common ( unless you count the cases of "witch hunts" used to make God happy by killing someone whose suspected unholy deeds made God punish the area ).
At the exponential rate of technological advances, I don't think we should give up just yet on visiting another planet in our life time. We seem to be inching ever closer to curing the most prolific disease of all time, old age. If we can cure that disease, then what does it matter if it takes 100 years to get to another planet. If we can get all of these anti-science crack pots out of elected office.
If we "cure" old age, we'd better do something about birth control at the same time or the birthrate will rapidly lead to disastrous overpopulation and ecosystem collapse.
Logans Run.
Don't get your hopes up, not one disease has ever been cured.
Have you seen or heard of polio occuring recently?
Baddog40, have you ever heard of antibiotics? Talk to someone at any STD clinic. AIDS is still a tough nut to crack, but once 'incurable' syphilis and gonorrhea are treated and eliminated every day...
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
There will be a "new heaven and a new earth", for those that ... believe. John 3:16
Well, no surprise that it didn't take long for someone to throw Christian mythology into the mix. I just wish I could see the look on the religious folks' faces after we've finally made contact with countless intelligent alien civilizations and discover no Yahweh or Jesus or Ten Commandments or so forth anywhere else in the galaxy.
Your first sentence is Isaiah 34-4, second sentence is from Revelations.
If you're going to quote scripture, at least get it right.
We have a WINNER! The first religious nut nut comment on the article. Congratulations Edward-1730176.
You never know, he could be right. Maybe all of space is an elaborate screen ala The Truman Show, and earth is just one big reality tv show. Gonna get rolled right up when the show gets canx.
Therefore all of the murder and genocide in god's name are just one big slapstick comedy.
Surprise! Haha. Joke's on you.
Not sure why other intelligent races existing necessarily means there is no divine creator. And not sure why you people get so upset whenever someone states they believe in one. Long as they aren't trying to force you to believe something you don't want to, who cares?
Actually, watched a show the other day about how the universe itself could simply be a projection of all that has happened and all that will happen. Along the lines of "No information is ever lost" and big bang theory. Truman Show might not be incorrect.
The universe, and all of us are just a dream within the mind of a solipsistic Japanese butterfly.
Actually you misquoted the verse.
Austin 3:16 says "I just whipped your a**"
Can't wait till we get to one of these planets and have a war over which god is the real one. Or maybe they will just accept the fact that our god is the real one and they were wrong all along.
Of all the gods invented and religions declared over the thousands of years our kind of human has been around...why does this one have to be so loud-mouthed and tedious? But it will just keep mouthing the training platitudes until another new one comes along.
Maybe the aliens are just too smart to show themselves...some loving christians or muslims would burn them alive in the name of their "special gods." As the religions rule the governments...it is very possible.
A wise man once said: All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream and we are an imagination of ourselves.
Thank you Bill Hicks
Here's Tom with the weather...
Great, can we send the "beast and mystery babylon" to one of them? May be send all corruption and corruptors there too. Send the EU, the UN and it's croonies there too.
No no no, leave them here, I'LL go to the new planet, thank you very much!
Ill go!
The numbers don't surprise me. I'd imagine that 8-10 planets with additional moons are quite normal to develop around stars. Someday humans will dream of the stars again and explore the new worlds and take advantage of the resources that are scattered throughout the universe. So much potential and growth that can occur. I hope to see within my lifetime a space settlement other then a rotating stay on a tiny space station. But I'm not holding my breath on that dream.
Our own electronic projection – starting less than one hundred years ago—would hit another planet millions of years after its civilization had expired, or alternatively, long before it evolved. In that case, no communication would be possible because we would attempt to communicate with each other millions of years apart. The probability that an expanding eggshell from one civilization would intersect another civilization exactly at the right time when the receiving civilization would be able to detect such signals would certainly be 'astronomically' small, that is, almost non-existent.
On the other hand, if we assume a much more optimistic estimate – let's say a potential civilization would have evolved or progressed over several million years, then another possibility arises. The late Carl Sagan pointed out that such an extremely advanced civilization might have no interest whatsoever in our primitive human species. The gap would be too immense and such aliens would conceivable look at us, as we look at lower forms of life, such as insects for example. Or they might just ignore us as so underdeveloped that communication with us would be a waste of their time.
I have little doubt the universe is teeming with life. Hopefully, the speed of light is the universal speed limit.
Hopefully the speed of light is the limit? Or did you mean you hope it isn't?
Proving the existence of tachyons would be neat, as they would have to be able to move no slower than the speed of light. If this is true, and they exist, then theoretically we'd be able to go anywhere in the universe, perhaps instantly. The idea is that, unlike conventional particles, as their energy decreases, their speed increases. Lots of theoretical physics and science fiction, but man, that would be the answer.
I'm thinking he's not interested in discovering other life forms. Can't say that I blame him much. There is no reason to believe that other life forms would be any different than our own. Meaning they would see themselves as better, and have little use for all other civilizations. If they are so advanced they are able to travel the distance to reach us, they may be able to communicate with us no better than we can communicate with a colony of ants.
That's what I was wondering... did he mean that, or did he mean to say he hoped the speed of light is NOT a limit? If the former, I agree with you, GK... we might not want to meet them! We can only hope they're less like us -- more "grown up," as it were, culturally and such.
I think that it is best if the speed of light is the universal speed limit. Having contact with other world life forms may not be a good thing. It may have a bad outcome for us or them. Especially if the technologies are vastly different.
I guess I'll stick with the positive view -- that by the time we have the capability to cross great distances, we'll have matured a bit more, and that anyone else out there will have also. I definitely hope we can get around "faster than light" in some respects -- I'd rather meet others out there. Sci-fi has us worried they'll be giant robots or evil aliens, but I bet they aren't. Bad films where aliens come to find us for food or steal our energy are ludicrous plots -- I mean, anyone with the technology to traverse the universe, never mind lay waste to our planet with incredibly advanced weapons, probably has the ability to solve their food and energy problems.
Besides, it's a big universe, and I'd rather explore it than stay stuck on this one pale blue dot!
I bet this estimate is super low. The way we find planets mostly is going to find large planets orbiting close to their sun. Smaller planets aren't going to be seen this way, and planets orbiting further out will be missed. I'm sure we'll see this estimate go way up over the years.
I was thinking the same thing. Half the planets in our Solar system are smaller than the planets they even mentioned.
We live in an exciting age where our technology has advanced to the point that we can detect planets outside of our own solar system. Next step is finding out a way to get there faster. Then get to Mars, Europa and Titan and move on from there. In a thousand years who is to say where we can be. Of course that is assuming we don't destroy ourselves by that time.
Well, if our planet is one in a Billion, then it sounds like there are another 160 planets out there very similar to us. And if you can assume that each planet is near the same age as our own, (We're part of the same solar system and all) say a billion years, there is about a 1 in 60,000 chance that one of these planets are within 200 years of us in development. So if these assumptions are close, than it's safe to assume that we are still pretty much alone in this Galaxy. Not completely alone, but pretty much.
Huh? People who don't understand math should not try to use it to prove their assertions.
What if these 160 planets didn't have the mass extinction events we have? Their cultures could be millions of years ahead of us... or primordial slimeballs. Who knows.
How can you possibly assume that each of the 160 planets you mentioned are the anywhere near the same age as ours? That's a pretty unrealistic assumption. The nearest Earth-like planet could be a billion years older than Earth. That's an appreciable percentage of the age of the universe itself. It could also be a billion years younger than Earth.
It's common sense even planets in our solar system have satillites and perhaps some have primitive life. Although many planets may have various life forms, intelligent life may be extremely rare. Only one way to find out, maybe not, if we can develope extremely powerful telescopes.
Humans are special! Short yellow bus special... I wonder how that would translate to an alien culture?
Report back to planet; Checked out the third planet from that one sun you wondered about...forget it. Covered by a strange group of parasitic life forms. They foul their own nests, destroy their unborn children, neglect the poorest and weakest as unworthy to exist as equals, and are either starving or gorging themselves depending on where they live. Self-destruction is only a matter of time. Recommend avoiding them until they die off. They still worship assorted gods and kill each other as their gods dictate. It has been determined that not enough of these creatures could accept any ideas of enlightenment as they are manipulated from birth. Avoid area and warn others off. No intelligent life here worth saving.
still working, yes. -BUT- we can change these things because we see them in ourselves. We will always be 'still working' on ourselves. For as many negatives there are about our existance, there are far more positives. I still believe we are worth saving.
That's for nature to decide.
Very very true Mr. Dickerson... Unfortunately for us something like 99% of all species have gone extinct. Not looking very good for 'ol humanity. Fortunately though, any given species that has lived on this world have had a rough average of a few million years to learn enough to leave. If we keep at it and don't destroy ourselves we have arguably a couple million years left to get the hell off this rock. Lets hope we beat Mama N to the punch and reach escape velocity so we can see how far we can spread before the Vogons come.
And this is just one Galaxy...
This is interesting. But life on them, like our Earth? I'm not so sure about.
Guarantee there's some sort of life on at least ONE of those billions of planets.
You can guarantee that?
Existence of other forms of life? Probably likely.
"Like our Earth"? Probably not.
As for what extraterrestrial life might look like, go to your local bookstore, find the science fiction aisle and start reading. There's been hundreds of variations published on this fascinationg theme.
There is far too much space. Far too many places that may hold a possibility. The universe is very very old and will last for a very very very long time after we are gone. If there is no life but our own then shame on the universe. Such a mammoth waste of space/time. However if we ever encounter another race, then I have pity on us both.
I think that there are probably some advanced civilizations *somewhere* in the galaxy but the odds of one being close to us and looking for or receptive to contact in our galactic neighborhood is probably not big. Also, I think we will find that life is probably not uncommon in other solar systems (only once in ours that we know of) but intelligent life not so common (jokes about current inhabitants of our planet notwithstanding). Looking at our own planet, how many mass extinctions were there on Earth when things were almost wiped out? The dinosaurs ruled the planet for a quarter of a billion years and apparently did not develop intelligence and/or a civilization. We've just shown up in the past few million years and and only in the last 60 years have been reaching off planet.
I find it amazing that life held out on this little world. For all the harsh things that have happened, life prevailed. I think the only missing part is finding microbial life somewhere else in the solar system. If we can find that, then I would be all-in on the bet that there is life elsewhere in our galaxy, and that life is teeming throughout the universe.
160Bn stars in our galaxy, and 4.5ly to the nearest one. Not a crowded neighborhood. Czeke, you are one froopy dude, by the way. I'll let you know when my sub-etha transmitter picks up a Vogon
Thanks, BikerLimey. I'll be at a window seat in Milliways.
Don't forget your babel fish
So is there life like on Earth? Seems unlikely on the surface, but think about it. DNA is not just something magical; there's a reason why the various chemicals join up and form the familiar double-helix design. It's certain happen that same way elsewhere. That doesn't necessarily mean life forms will look like those here, but considering the vast difference in life forms on Earth, it isn't hard to imagine similar life forms as we have. Certainly, that doesn't mean bipedal humanoids will rule other worlds... but who knows?
People who insist that there are billions of intelligent species gumming up the universe out there should consider this: One doesn't need more than a bare instant to look out into the night to spot an infinite number of stars/galaxies... so why ought it not be the same for all those civilizations' radio communications? We should be inundated by not millions but by billions of signals just from the radio communications of emerging cosmic civilizations. But we "see/hear" not even (from) so much as one.
The reason is an almost endless multiplicity of obstacles to the rise of intelligent life even up to the embarrassingly primitive "just came down off the trees monkeys" level of ours. [What you need to do is begin by Googling "THESOLUTIONISTHIS" and then start use your brain.]
One single little pebble 65 million years ago misses the earth and this is the planets of the giganto-naked-chickens instead of the planet of the apes. And that's just ONE thing. It's likely that 450 million years ago an exploding star in our galaxy sterilized almost the entire the Milky Way ... somehow allowing life on earth to miraculously escape this very common fate for most life in the cosmos: There's a very good basis to believe that galaxy-wide sterilizing supernova explosions are rather routine events in ALL galaxies and that that's the most mundane explanation for why there are so few (if ANY) intelligent life forms in the universe... outside us monkeys.
S D Rodrian
.
If you can think it, it probably exists, somewhere, sometime.
How long would it take a radio signal to get here from a planet, say, 150 million light years away? Remember that sound travels much more slowly than light. I don't think the radio signals we've been sending out have even made it to our nearest neighboring star, Alpha Centauri. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies that are each millions of light years across. Unless one of those civilizations can break the speed of light, we're not likely to see or hear anything they're sending out and vice versa.
150 million years. Radio signals are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, they are not sound waves.
LOL. Radio waves travel at the speed of light. "Sound" is a vibration of air that your ear can interpret. There is no sound in space.
Well, quite frankly Miss Scarlet. Radio waves travel at the speed of light. Sound waves cannot travel in space. In space no one can hear you scream. The SC-FI movies have sound effects in space because it would be boring not to.
Miss Scarlet, radio signals are a form of electromagnetic radiation and they travel out through space at exactly the speed of light which is about 186,000 miles per second or about 700 million miles per hour. As others have stated, they are actually a form of light, if you will, but one which is invisible and which is capable of being modulated, or varied, in order to carry a meaningful signal, which is the sound that eventually comes out of your radio, after it is received and decoded and amplified by the elctronic systems within the radio. The sound emitted by the radio travels at the speed of sound to your ear, or at about 1,126 feet per second or about 768 miles per hour. As fast as this is, it MUCH slower than the speed of light.
Proxima Centauri, the smaller binary partner of Alpha Centauri, is about 4.24 light years from us. This means that at the speed of light, radio signals take about 4.24 years to reach Proxima Centauri. If there happened to be a sophisticated humanoid society on a planet orbiting either star of this system, which we can be pretty sure there isn't, but just for the sake of discussion, if there were, and they responded to our radio signals, we would get their answer in 4.24 years, for a total transmission time of about 8.48 years. A slow conversation to be sure, but easily within the range of detectability.
Now then, other stars in our galaxy are a lot farther away, but there's billions of them within our Milky Way itself. Even the very farthest of these is no more than 100,000 light years away. So that's a 200,000 year round trip for a radio signal... obviously not practical for conversation, but if a society had flourished there long ago we might detect their signals now. It's interesting that we don't, perhaps they're not strong enough.
But all of that is nothing compared to the "billions of galaxies" which you mentioned as well. These far off galaxies extend throughout the universe to billions of light years away. The idea of transmitting a signal to them and ever getting a comprehensible response is rather absurd, but that's the size of the universe we live in. As you stated, unless one of these can "break the speed of light" we won't be hearing an answer, but we do see the light emitted by the stars of these galaxies as it reaches us from long ago.
You have to wonder... . We see time after time in recent history where science thinks something is limited, or unlikely (as in "are there other planets", etc), only to have a flood of possibile candidates, when new discoveries are made. So, maybe that's our future here. More goldilocks planets, more life discovered, etc. Would be cool. But, not necessarily. Keep in mind the Wall Street admonition: "Past performance is no guarentee of future performance." Our grandchildren will likely live in a glorious time, just as our grandparents did.
@MikeyMike, Alpha Centauri is a trinary system. Alph Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B, and Proxima Centauri.
Plus you have to remember that supposedly nothing with mass can outrun light, but space itself can go faster than light. All we need is to form a bubble of space/time and learn how to move it through space. If someone could dream it up in the 50s or 60s, then surely there is a way for us to accomplish it by now. Remember the Nautilus and how unreal that sounded when Mr. Verne wrote 20,000 leagues under the sea? What was the first nuclear submarine called? What was the experimental space shuttle called? All we have to do is get out of our own way and wait. We are capable of almost anything if we allow it.
Perhaps civilizations tend to go from radio to something 'else' not very long after the discovery of radio, that we haven't discovered yet. (no, I don't pretend to know what it may be, though I have a few suspicions)
SETI searches aren't able to take this into account, because we can obviously only work with what we know (though there are occasional 'optical SETI' searches for evidence of coherent laser light from stars).
Not quite. It's not been proven for sure yet that Proxima Centauri is actually a part of the AB Centauri system. It's proper motion indicates it probably is but because there are multiple stars in either single, binary, or trinary configurations with the same relative motion through space all these stars could be from the same region of formation which would explain their similar motion. Obviously more research is needed.
edmgeno and pw38, thanks for your input and clarification!
pw38, I tend to agree with you. At 13 000 au ( 0.2 lt.yr) we have no way of knowing whether or not it is a part of the system. However there has to be some gravitational influences among the three.
A and B fluctuate between 36 au and 11 au, too elliptical for a planet to have any stable orbit around. On the other hand, I've always had a fascination with red dwarves (BBC's bringing back the series), There are so many, many of them (Proxima too), unfortunately to be in a red dwarf's habitable zone a planet tends to be tidally locked.
To all, I'll leave you with this.....the local neighbourhood. (rightclick, hold and spin)
Try that again.
Ok, my bad. But even at the speed of light my point is the same. 150 million years is a long time.