carbon dioxide Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: It has yet to be proven that sentience has survival value and that development naturally goes that way. And we have evidence of life in our own solar system. It is way too early to decide if our system is normal or an anomaly. How would one ever be able to determine what is normal and what is not from billions of galaxies and each galaxy having 100 billion stars on average and pretty much every star having at least one planet. Even a sampling of 10000 systems would be such a small sampling of the vastness of space.
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It's purely a statistical matter. With billions of galaxies, with all the basic ingredients of life everywhere available, scientists simply posit the likelihood of life everywhere. The likelihood that it only occurred once here on Earth seems to them absurd. Proof is not regarded as necessary. Then you hit the anthropic principle. That it happened here once does not mean it is likely to happen elsewhere. We do not have the odds down since we have a sample size of one and we know it has to have life or it would not even be a question.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Then you hit the anthropic principle. That it happened here once does not mean it is likely to happen elsewhere. We do not have the odds down since we have a sample size of one and we know it has to have life or it would not even be a question. That would make good sense, if and only if there was not a profusion of water and organic molecules everywhere in the universe. The same applies to the many Goldilocks exoplanets. Astronomers deal in statistics, which is why they overwhelmingly accept the strong likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe (not necessarily human life). I am not an astronomer. I am merely reporting their views.
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: That would make good sense, if and only if there was not a profusion of water and organic molecules everywhere in the universe. The same applies to the many Goldilocks exoplanets. Astronomers deal in statistics, which is why they overwhelmingly accept the strong likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe (not necessarily human life). I am not an astronomer. I am merely reporting their views. Water and organic molecules do not automatically result in life.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 2, 2019 Posted January 2, 2019 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Water and organic molecules do not automatically result in life. Yet without them, life seems pretty unlikely. You are correct that science has not been able to demonstrate that a primeval "soup" of organic molecules, methane, water, etc., automatically produces life. Once again, however, astrobiologists are not interested in proof, but only in statistical likelihood. Most of them seem to believe (along with evolutionary biologists) that life can appear spontaneously. I don't believe that is possible, but I am not the arbiter of what biologists believe.
Teancum Posted January 5, 2019 Posted January 5, 2019 On 1/1/2019 at 8:10 PM, carbon dioxide said: Its a good training ground. Does one really believe that God puts up with a lot of people questioning him and his authority in the Celestial Kingdom. Satan and a bunch of his followers tried that. Did not work out for them well. It is all imaginary.
Recommended Posts