Extraterrestrial Sightings

[jonboy79]

This is basically what I came to say. I am a creationist as well, and if anything it expands the realm of what I think is possible. It's interesting that it seems like it does the opposite for you, or maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying?

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Life elsewhere, in my opinion destroys creationism and organized religion immediately. If life is able to spring up in many places random chance is a far stronger possibility than intelligent design/creation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Terpsfan82]

Life elsewhere, in my opinion destroys creationism and organized religion immediately. If life is able to spring up in many places random chance is a far stronger possibility than intelligent design/creation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I used to think that way, where science seemed counterintuitive to religion (I'm a creationist as well). Then I found that more studying increased my faith rather than having the opposite effect. When I look at the intricate design our own respiratory system, and how everything must work in sync for something as simple as drawing a breath, I see intelligent design as a greater probability than random chance. The second law of thermodynamics speaks to the natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state, not the other way around.

[NCRAVEN]

Life elsewhere, in my opinion destroys creationism and organized religion immediately. If life is able to spring up in many places random chance is a far stronger possibility than intelligent design/creation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just it though, you're assuming it springs up.

I think it would be more likely that if it were random chance with damn near infinite odds against, there would few times this happens. I'd see more life elsewhere only increasing the need for a creator.

[blah3]

Life elsewhere, in my opinion destroys creationism and organized religion immediately. If life is able to spring up in many places random chance is a far stronger possibility than intelligent design/creation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn’t destroy creationism or religion at all

[bmorebirds_24]

So do the aliens call us aliens or do they call us human?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BustOfPallas]

So do the aliens call us aliens or do they call us human?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As long as they don't call us food.

[Greg]

As much as 85% of the universe is classified as “dark matter” which “basically” means they don’t understand it as all known matter interacts with light. Every day we discover hundreds of new exo-planets and we can basically only find planets the size of Jupiter that orbit very closely to very small stars. And still yet, every year we still find life on places on Earth we never knew life could exist.

Life doesn’t have to conform to our understanding of what it requires to exist. The chances there is no additional life in the Universe is effectively zero. Divide anything by infinity and it approaches zero.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't emphatic about it but my take was regarding intelligent life. Something that can sustain a brain. Microbial life can live in much more extreme conditions.

[Greg]

You are definitely way more well-versed in this topic than I, but for some reason, I still find what you wrote very hard to believe. However, I think that's just my imagination causing that. What you said makes sense.

This is old news actually, but the odds of another earth like planet (one that could sustain intelligent life) are so small that ours shouldn't exist. There was a book published in 1988 called "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" which goes through much of the requirements for intelligent life and how likely the needs would come together on a planet by chance. That is 33 years old. Since then we have found the life-requiring constraints considerably more so.

The book also covers evolution (their point not being mine) and they found 10 different steps in single cell to human evolution that the odds of any of them, much less all 10, would occur that none should happen in the normal life span of our sun. If you believe we evolved by chance then you would also happen to believe that there is almost no chance life would have evolved faster elsewhere given our evolution required at least 10 different miracles.

If you know me you know my view on the matter. Luck had nothing to do with it.

By the way, all of the science I use is accepted science and not science some Christians use in an attempt to prove the earth is 6,000 years old.

[Greg]

Greg has done a TON of research on this subject and we have had some conversations going back 10-15 years on this board. So I want this to come off in the most respectful manner possible. His math and research comes from the slant of someone that is a creationist and intending to disprove the chance of life elsewhere

No scientist of note would take issue with the science and math I use. As I just noted in the previous post I use science that is accepted by a large majority of physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers.

There does however also exist a group of scientists and mathematicians that simply feel that our knowledge and understanding of how things work is so limited that we are not yet qualified to discuss in those terms. So it is simply a matter of Hubris vs humility.

This is QUITE true. But the more we have discovered the more fine tuned we fine the universe, our solar system, and out planet which is required for intelligent life.

I believe you and I both fit into the second category, and there are plenty of legitimate scientists that also ascribe to that theory. Personally, I find the Hubris of today’s scientists insufferable. On a personal level that may not be the case, but at the institutional level as reported in the mass media, that is absolutely the case. Newton thought he had it all figured out until Einstein Proved he missed a major variable in his equations. I have no doubt that eventually someone will do the same for Einstein and it will again further our understanding of the Universe. The fact that the Micro and the Macro are currently incompatible simply means that we as of yet lack the understanding to tie them together.

Quantum mechanics and particularly "spooky action at a distance" flummoxed Einstein and he hated the idea. But quantum mechanics sure does work in predicting things and is useful in all kinds of designs.

[Greg]

Your last three words are the words I keep hanging on. Why limit ones thinking to such a vast degree?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A life that can sustain a brain would be constrained to the same environment, or something close, as we need. And life is almost certainly constrained to being carbon based. No other element comes close, nowhere near close, to forming the myriad of molecules that carbon does. And if you want DNA, proteins, and all of the other kinds of things replicating life requires you need all of those molecules.

[Greg]

As long as they don't call us food.

We will stop using the generic aliens when we know what they call themselves.

[jonboy79]

A life that can sustain a brain would be constrained to the same environment, or something close, as we need. And life is almost certainly constrained to being carbon based. No other element comes close, nowhere near close, to forming the myriad of molecules that carbon does. And if you want DNA, proteins, and all of the other kinds of things replicating life requires you need all of those molecules.

Again, based on our current understanding of science. Everything you are suggesting is accepted science and math, I am not trying to paint it as fringe lunatic realm stuff. We are simply spiking the football after the first play of the game we ran up the middle for a yard.
Silicon based life is expected to be possible.

I believe it to be myopic to claim that for a planet to be able to sustain life, it must be able to sustain US. The more we learn as a human race the more we realize we know almost nothing.

If It takes a trillion consecutive rolls of snake eyes to meet certain conditions, then sure, you are correct the chance is incredibly small, but when given infinite dice rolls it not only will happen, it will happen infinite times.

The chances we come across intelligent alien beings is certainly quite small, it is, however, not zero.

We don’t know what we don’t know.

Is spacetime infinite because it is expanding or because it’s always been infinite?
The more I look into dark matter, dark energy, black holes, white holes, quantum physics etc the less intelligent I think we are as a species.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk