Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ General Gaming _ Earthlike Planets May be Common....

Posted by: Derek Sep 8 2006, 04:39 PM

According to http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/09/08/earthlike.planets.reut/index.html, the latest studies indicate that Earthlike planets may be rather common (they estimate up to 1/3rd of solar systems should have planets.

My background is physics and astronomy, so I am somewhat familiar with this, but I haven't much looked into this study. However, this again makes the fermi paradox leap into my mind.

Where in the heck is everybody, if planets are so common?!?!?!

I suppose this is only tangentially gaming related, in that all the sci-fi games postulate that thousands of star systems are inhabited. Anyways, I wanted to throw this out there, see what the opinions were.

Again, whre the heck is all the bug eyed monsters, green skinned hotties (Star Trek) and all the other alien races that should be out there?

Dave

Posted by: Backgammon Sep 8 2006, 04:45 PM

Well, I have no background whatsoever in any of this, but isn't it extremely unlikely for life as intelligent as ours to develop? I mean, sure, you could have tons of planets with alien animals and insects, but a race intelligent enough to have spaceships or whatever? As I understand it, we humans are pratically a fluke, pure luck that everything came together to give us a change to evolve. I don't expect to see that on many other planets, no?

Posted by: Derek Sep 8 2006, 05:06 PM

Well, yes, and no. Even if by extremely unlikely, you mean one chance in a million, then consider the number of solar systems out there, one chance in a million means a hell of a lot of intelligent races in the galaxy

One estimate states that "we can estimate the number of stars in the galaxy as roughly 100 billion", so dividing by 1,000,000 gives you 100,000 intelligent races in the galaxy. Of course, there are plenty of other factors (number of stars with earthlike planets, actual chance of an intelligent race, where that race is in it's development, etc... ) but still, the number is going to be large. And that is just our galaxy. When you consider that "The Hubble Space Telescope has found there may be 125 billion galaxies in the universe.", then things get really weird. Even if there is no FTL travel, and everyone is limited to light speed, given the age of the universe, we should have seen something by now.

So, again, where is everybody?

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 8 2006, 05:19 PM

QUOTE (Derek @ Sep 8 2006, 11:06 AM)

So, again, where is everybody?

God hasn't made them yet.

since you're talking odds then i can only assume (which i don't like doing) that you're not a creationist. if we really did randomly pop-up on this planet or if we really did evolve from the tinyist of microbes already living here, then odds would say that it's possible that the same thing happened on at least one of the other billions of planets out there (earth-like or not...noone says aliens have to be carbon-based lifeforms).

but i believe that God made us and, since there's no mention of anyone besides us and the angles in the bible, then i can only assume (which i don't like doing) that there is no one else. that doesn't mean that He hasn't created other peoples...it just means that i don't believe that He has, since He's made no mention of them.

and if He has created other people (and i'm open-minded enough to believe that's it's possible that he has) and they're out there somewhere right now, then it must not be important for us to know about them. or maybe He would've told us about them, but once we sinned He decided that we weren't worth telling. or maybe He always planned on us finding each other on our own - so one day, if we ever get our act together space-wise, we will.

i could keep going, but i'll stop there.

Posted by: Firewall Sep 8 2006, 05:35 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce @ Sep 8 2006, 05:19 PM)

there's no mention of anyone besides us and the angles in the bible, then i can only assume (which i don't like doing) that there is no one else.

Really? Genesis 4:17 certainly looks like there was someone else out there. But, if it wasn't YHWH who made this other people in the east, who was it? Sorry kid, looks like YHWH (the jealous god) had some rivals...

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Sep 8 2006, 05:41 PM

As for why we haven't seen aliens, I'd say there's a relatively narrow space between "not intelligent enough to contact us" and "intelligent enough not to contact us", if you catch my meaning.

Posted by: PBTHHHHT Sep 8 2006, 05:46 PM

We're actually located in a sanctuary zone of space, all the interstellar alien empires around us are watching us like biologists would do and wondering when will we learn our lessons and uplift ourselves. Till then, the quarantine zone stays including the transmission blockers...

( No, I'm not being serious... or am I? )

Oh, how about... all the other life in the galaxy is empty right now because the Halo rings that fired last time has eliminated it all and our species are one of the first that's managed to develop to this stage in life. Sorry, been playing too much Halo.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 8 2006, 05:56 PM

QUOTE (Firewall @ Sep 8 2006, 11:35 AM)

QUOTE (craigpierce @ Sep 8 2006, 05:19 PM)

there's no mention of anyone besides us and the angles in the bible, then i can only assume (which i don't like doing) that there is no one else.

by "in the east", do you mean an earthly direction? because what i meant by "...there's no mention of anyone besides us and the angles..." i meant no mention of anyone besides humans and the angles. and i can agree that after a time there were plenty of humans filling the earth, including the eastern half...

and when you say "Genesis 4:17", i'm not sure how that applies...mine says...

"Cain had intercourse with his wife, and she concived and gave birth to Enoch. He became the founder of a city and gave the city the name of his son Enoch."

Posted by: Dale Sep 8 2006, 08:19 PM

I don't think any rational conversation about extraterrestial life should include mention of a book of fairy tales.

Anyhow, look at us as a species. We've reached a certain level of technological development and use it to destroy ourselves. It's turned out to be laughably easy to obliterate an entire planet with relatively simple technology.

Therefore there might not be any intelligent aliens "near" us simply because of the chance that they destroyed themselves via environmental ruination and/or war.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 8 2006, 08:23 PM

QUOTE (Dale)

Anyhow, look at us as a species. We've reached a certain level of technological development and use it to destroy ourselves. It's turned out to be laughably easy to obliterate an entire planet with relatively simple technology.

Therefore there might not be any intelligent aliens "near" us simply because of the chance that they destroyed themselves via environmental ruination and/or war.

or maybe they're like us and haven't killed themselves yet, but are so busy trying that they have no time to explore space.

Posted by: Derek Sep 8 2006, 11:09 PM

Umm, let me see, my degree is in physics, so while not a definite indicator, it's a good sign that I am not a creationist. So, I'd appreciate if you didn't bring religion into this, and if you feel it necessary to include religion (for or against) in your comments, then I would appreciate you not commenting at all.

Thanks
Dave

Posted by: Derek Sep 8 2006, 11:11 PM

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

As for why we haven't seen aliens, I'd say there's a relatively narrow space between "not intelligent enough to contact us" and "intelligent enough not to contact us", if you catch my meaning.

Well, there is that, or what actually worries me more, is what Dale said about destroying ourselves (or other species all destroying themselves as well)

Of course, it makes my fantasies of boldly going whre no man has gone before, and meeting the green skinned hottie that much more unlikely. Oh well.

Dave

Posted by: Ancient History Sep 8 2006, 11:20 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

i could keep going, but i'll stop there.

I wish you would have, it's painful enough reading one entire post where the only time you correctly use capitalization you're referring to God.

Grammar nazism aside, there are many reasons why we may not have any sign of intelligent life yet - or may not have recognized it as such. Still, I speak for myself when I say I'm glad Shadowrun doesn't have to deal with extraterrestrials just yet. I could do without the inevitable slash on fanfiction sites.

Posted by: eidolon Sep 9 2006, 12:56 AM

Speak for yourself. Halley's brought ETs to Earth in the 80s and again in YotC in my last campaign.

Posted by: eidolon Sep 9 2006, 12:59 AM

Bah. Stupid router. Double post. Bah.

Posted by: Dranem Sep 9 2006, 09:10 AM

If you want to go along the fictional line of 'Boldy going where no Man has gone before" and green skinned hotties. Or even a few other authors...
We probably won't meet other interstellar beings untill we become insterstellar beings.
As stated in Star Trek a few times. "Humanity is too primitive at this state to pose an interest."
I mean, outside of slave labour, what contribution could we give to an intergalactic species?

A great author once quoted. "The proof that intelligent life exists out there is that they haven't tried to contact us."

Galactic Empires may expand or fall, but untill Earth proves to be asset or a threat, we'll never know who's really out there.

Posted by: Backgammon Sep 11 2006, 04:54 PM

QUOTE (Derek)

Actually, I just remembered an equation I'd heard about, that give the number of intelligent alien lifeforms in our galaxy. A bit of googling revealed that it's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation. It basically encompasses these things we're talking about - the tiny chance of a life supporting planet, and then intelligent life actually coming through. Anyway, the *current* result of the equation is 0.0000008.

So yeah, like I thought, not very likely.

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Sep 11 2006, 09:45 PM

The current estimation would have to be taken with a huge grain of salt though. It even says in the wiki (which is just what the admins of the wiki site have assumed to true based on number of people saying its true) that those estimation are based on ONE example of life. No real science is going to be taken serious if only one example of proof is brought in and then not repeatable. And who knows if life on Earth started on Earth? The meteor that was from Mars (I forget its offical designation) had bacterial material in it. Or at least evidence that it was made by bacteria. Bacteria is a life form. Some people have speculated that life on Earth got its start from from bits of Mars being blown off by an asteroid sending genetic material to a planet that would let it grow. And has been mentioned before, just because the conditions arent right for human style life why not life that cab with stand the ration levels or gas levels, or why does life have to be organic at all, fringe UFO followers believe that one of the aliens that like to visit us are silicon based. Anything involved in this equation would have to be highly suspect. Cause really we are now starting to think (not just believe sci fi fiction) that Mars really did have life on it at one time (and possibly be us) and there is considerable thought that Europa may have at least bacterial life on it as well. So if in the next 50 years of so we discover life had exsisted on Mars and pissbily on Europa, the estimate of life bareing planets per star would have to be increased, using this one system model.

But Im biased as well, I cant think that of all the planets in the universe, we are the only one to have life on it, even if its the only one with "intelligent" life.

Posted by: Derek Sep 11 2006, 11:57 PM

Yeah, Drake's equation is a good start, but change just one of the variables, and the end result varies wildly.

Anyways, I happen to believe that there are plenty of others out there. Hopefully we'll find out within my lifetime.

Posted by: hyzmarca Sep 12 2006, 03:09 AM

Why is everybody? They're still living comfortably on their own planets and in their near solar systems because FTL isn't.

Consider that you are living comfortably on your planet or somewhere in your near solar system and someone suggests that you may want to say hello to your neighbors. Your neighbors, of course, live tens of thousands of years away using the fastest vessels available to you and your life span is about a century. So, when your decendants do reach your neighbors' planet none of them will remember you because you've been dead for many generations even with realtivistic time-dilation.

Second, consider the cost of building, fueling, and supplying an ark of this type. It will have to carry many generations worth of food, water, clothing, and other supplies. It will also have to carry a rather absurd amount of fuel so that it can accelerate to a realitivistic velocity and then slow down again. Enough fuel for a return trip won't be necessary because everything you know and love would have been dead for more than twenty thousand years if the ship ever does return and there is a very good chance that no one on your planet will even remember that they send a spaceship out.

Never forget the vast distances involved in space travel. Even if there is intelligent life (which is probable) actually meeting them is darn near impossible.

Posted by: Backgammon Sep 12 2006, 05:03 AM

Frag: I have NO doubt there is TONS of life out there. Bacteria, insects, whatever. But I'm talking about intelligent life equal or superior to ours. It's just so damn unlikely. I'm not saying there isn't any, just that it's a needle in a haystack.. the universe is BIG. We may never meet our neighbours.

Derek: Certainly. I mean, an equation to calculate alien empires... Like you say, at this point, it's a matter of belief. You choose to believe how much alien life there is. Everyone and anyone can argue about how much they think there is, no one knows for now.

hyz: yeah, good point. If I remember correctly, when travelling in space, you age slower than earthbound people. So not only are you gone for a long ass time, you're gone for an even LONGER long ass time than you feel. At this point, though, I believe there could be a way to travel faster than light. Much, much faster. Damn equations that say it's impossible. We haven't discovered everything about the universe yet...

Oh, and to add some flavour to the mix, what about extra-universe life? I think scientists have pretty much narrpwed down that multiple parrallel (ala Sliders, I guess) exist. We've barely begun to explore this, but what about beings from other dimensions poking around in ours?

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Sep 12 2006, 06:18 AM

I have a feeling there is plenty of intelligent life out there. Even if transmissions from earth moves at the speed of light, how long would it take reach them or we get theirs? I mean we are listening for any repeated significant signal and broadcasting on the frequecy of water. How long before it reaches them? Even our furtherest satellite has barely escaped out solar system. And even if the aliens could hear us, who says they want to talk to us. Look at the shit we are doing to each other, and scifi movies about the shit we are doing to them. Thats like going to Georgia and squeeling like a pig on the mountain tops. Or maybe they just think we are too juvenile. What do you think wed do if we found a planet full of apes?

Anything we have seen here on earth that maybe considered extraterreterial is almost out right called a hoax or sightings of mad men and dismissed out right.

Posted by: Derek Sep 14 2006, 06:52 PM

We've been broadcasting since the early 20th century. Figure almost a 100 years of radio traffic, and while most of is absorbed by the atmosphere, radio waves actually propagate to infinity. So, while a very high sensitivity reciever would be required, as well as good noise filters, our transmissions have gone approximately a hundred light years out. Plenty of solar systems within that reach.

And considering that, if there is anyone else out there, there is bound to be something more advanced than us, we should be picking up their radio transmissions as well. Maybe not deliberate attempts to communicate, but the leakage that comes from when they first started transmitting.

The relativistic affects are what slow your aging (actually slow your perception of time) as you start to get close to the speed of light. It really only has a decent effect when you start going 2/3rd's of the speed of light, below that it is mostly negligible (although it still exists)

As for going faster than light, nothing in the equations say it is impossible. Only the part about actually going the speed of light. It takes infinte energy to accelerate to exactly the speed of light. Going faster than that isn't ruled oout. Now, there are some causal problems with getting somewhere faster than light would have got there (case/effect), but there are ways around that, as well.

However, even assuming that there is no FTL travel, a species that had space flight for 1000 years would have inevitbaly started spreading around the galaxy, and 1000 years is very very minor in the time scale of the universe. So, if some race developed space flight 100,000 years ago, and they were in our galaxy, we would have seen them by now, if they weren't trying to hide, that is.

Oh well. Enough for today.

Posted by: cybertrucker Sep 14 2006, 10:49 PM

Well Dave seeing as how we have freedom of speach and freedom of religion I doubt very highly that anyone cares if you dont want someone bringing up their beliefs about religion or not. If you dont like that someone is bringing up on religion then dont read it. Do not though however try to take away their rights to speak up on how they believe.

Thats one of the problems going on in the US right now.. There are people who dont believe in God or some religion and start complaining when other people express or show their beliefs or religion. What gives them the right to have their views strip away the rights of others that believe differently.

Personally I am not religious. I however have no problems hearing God announced in the Pledge. Or having someone say Merry CHRISTmas to me. It upsets me though to see others try to shut those that believe differently up.

Posted by: Firewall Sep 14 2006, 11:12 PM

QUOTE (cybertrucker)

Well Dave seeing as how we have freedom of speach and freedom of religion

Really? Because, from where I am sitting, it looks like we are on Dumpshock. That means DS's rules, not yours or your nation's. As for freedom of religion in the US, I can name some parts of Texas that would disagree with you there. Even hint at being a heathen and you will end up staring down the business end of Sheriff Root's 12-gauge...

As to the topic at hand, I think quoting creationism in a scientific discussion is akin to quoting "Mein Kampf" at the synagogue. It smells like trolling to me...

Posted by: Derek Sep 15 2006, 02:54 AM

QUOTE (cybertrucker)

You know, Cyber, I'm a US Marine, and I would fight and die for your right to go out in public and scream at the top of your lungs whatever your belief is. However, as Firewall said, the Dumpshock forums are not the US, and thus, have different rules. So, again, if you would like to discuss religion, please start a thread about it. However, just as I would not interject my comments about how spinach is so good into your thread about why the Mustang is the fastest car made these days, I would appreciate if you (or anyone else) did not inject something totally irrelevant into a discussion about life on other planets.

Dave

Posted by: Dale Sep 15 2006, 04:17 AM

Well said Derek.

Posted by: cybertrucker Sep 15 2006, 04:56 AM

I did not bring up religion someone else did, and you told him pretty much to shut up which was rude and you really had no right to do, If you dont like what he has to say about religion dont read it or go on your merry way and dont be rude to someone who has different beliefs than yourself. as for religion being brought into this topic the person who did so brought up religion on a subject matter which dealt directly with the orginal posters topic.

Posted by: hyzmarca Sep 15 2006, 06:27 AM

QUOTE (Derek)

However, even assuming that there is no FTL travel, a species that had space flight for 1000 years would have inevitbaly started spreading around the galaxy, and 1000 years is very very minor in the time scale of the universe. So, if some race developed space flight 100,000 years ago, and they were in our galaxy, we would have seen them by now, if they weren't trying to hide, that is.

It is by no means inevitable. It requires that enough members of that species want to spread out to justify the construction of interstellar arks and it would require that those members are wealthy and powerful enough to fund such a project.

Asside from the ability to survive the death of their star, there is no logical reason for any species to spread out beyond their imediate system. Creating a meaning ful interstealer empire is impossible due to time delays and interstellar trade is pointless for the same reason. Since wealth-building is the number one motivation for colonization this presents a problem.

Likewise, it is possible for cultures to devolp advnaced technology but refuse to use it, either out of preferance or short-sightedness. Look at Japan and China and their sailing technology. Both countries possessed sailing technology during the middle ages but neither of them put that technology to wide use because of their insular natures. There was no cultural incentive to do so. The steam engine was first invented in ancient Greece. If someone had the common sense to put it on a warship we'd all be speaking Greek right now. But no one did. Leonardo created the first tank and the first autonomous robot but there weren't many tanks or robots in Renaissance Italy.

It is far more liekly that a species will stay confined to its near star system in the absence of FTL technology. The costs of interstelar travel, both economic and personal, usually outweigh the benefits.

Posted by: Derek Sep 15 2006, 03:28 PM

QUOTE (cybertrucker)

You just don't get it, do you? Religion (whatever your beliefs are) has about as much place in a scientific discussion as spinach does in a discussion about the speed of cars.

Hyz, well, I agree that some races that develop space travel will not have that desire to explore, I also think the resources in a single solar system are limited, and in 100,000 years of use, they are bound to get depleted. A species survival instinct (which, if you subscribe to evoloution, as I do, is bound to exist in any successful species) will dictate that eventually they will begin to spread amongst the stars, even if only to avoid some sort of natural disaster (comets, interstellar dust storms, etc...)

So, I'm thinking that they should be spreading out at some point.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 15 2006, 03:39 PM

To be fair, no one specified this discussion is only open to scientific views. The question was, if there are other planets out there, where are the aliens? If religion has an answer, I for one don't see why having it posted here gets your panties in such a twist.

Forbidding religious views by your arguments makes as much sense as barring the views of all Russians.

Posted by: Witness Sep 15 2006, 03:57 PM

Should have joined this one a while back- it's a special interest of mine (I'm a biologist) and I've done a few school talks on the subject.

Yes Drake's Equation does vary wildly depending on the values to assign. I've done it with my own personal conservative and optimistic values: the former gives a total of something like 0.01 while the latter gives 90 (and my values were educated guesses but certainly not covering the full scale of possibilities). It's more a way of thinking about things than a useful predictive tool. However if you cut out the last three terms, so that you're only looking for the number of planets with life of any sort, then the numbers you get are pretty massive, however I dice it.

The main limiting factors, in my view, are the chance of developing human-like technological intelligence (and wanting to visit or contact other worlds if you're able to), the chance of maintaining that progress over a suitably extended period, the extremely vast numbers and distances involved, and the technological hurdles of intergalactic travel. Having said that, the aliens could arrive tomorrow, of course.

On the subject of creationism, well us Brits do like to have a good chuckle at the state of evolution education in the USA, but I'm open to chatting about it.

One thing I'd particularly like to ask craigpierce is this:

Does he believe:
a) that all the geologists, physicists, chemists and biologists are involved in some vast conspiracy to present false evidence, or
b) that all that incontrovertible evidence from numerous different fields of science is indeed there, but has been planted by the Creator to mislead us.

Because if it's 'a' then you've been sorely misled by con artists with a sordid financial interest in appealing to people like you, and if it's 'b' then how do you feel about having a Creator who lies to everybody?

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Sep 15 2006, 04:13 PM

QUOTE (Witness)

One thing I'd particularly like to ask craigpierce is this:

Does he believe:
a) that all the geologists, physicists, chemists and biologists are involved in some vast conspiracy to present false evidence, or
b) that all that incontrovertible evidence from numerous different fields of science is indeed there, but has been planted by the Creator to mislead us.

Because if it's 'a' then you've been sorely misled by con artists with a sordid financial interest in appealing to people like you, and if it's 'b' then how do you feel about having a Creator who lies to everybody?

That's it, use logic against the creationist! That'll win him over for sure!

Posted by: Witness Sep 15 2006, 04:23 PM

Not that I really care about winning him over (I'm just genuinely interested to hear how a creationist mentally resolves this particular issue) but refusing to stand up against creationist rhetoric hasn't exactly been working out too well in some parts of the world, now has it!

Posted by: Moon-Hawk Sep 15 2006, 04:33 PM

Touche.

Posted by: Derek Sep 15 2006, 05:54 PM

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 15 2006, 09:39 AM)

It's not that religious points of view are unacceptable, it's just that they require belief, and can not be proven/disproven by evidence, whereas scientific theories, by their very nature, can be disproven by evidence. It's the whole scientific method thing... Religious beliefs, coversely, are just that, beliefs, and require faith, and can not be disproven. So, while they are certainly valid world-view beliefs, they don't belong in a scientific discussion.

Plus, if you keep religion out of a discussion, you usually have less flaming and heated arguements, since politics and religion are the two things that really seem to set people off.

Posted by: nezumi Sep 15 2006, 06:21 PM

QUOTE (Derek)

QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 15 2006, 09:39 AM)

Like I said, I didn't see anyone proclaim this was only a scientific discussion. Someone asked a question, one of the (valid) answers happens to be based on non-scientific speculation.

As for the latter, the only people I've seen fly off the handle so far are the anti-religious. It occurs to me that they're the ones who should be chastised, not the person who honestly thinks he's contributing to the conversation.

Posted by: grendel Sep 15 2006, 06:41 PM

Why is the assumption that if life exists elsewhere in the universe it is necessarily more advanced than us? What if we are the bow shock of galactic civilization? What if our rise from single celled organisms is paralleled a thousand times over in the universe, but at the exact same pace?

So we've been transmitting radio waves for a hundred years. So what? That gives us a globe one hundred light years in diameter that we could possibly have affected. Assuming that whoever is out there is not only listening for transmissions (radio astronomy was a much later development than optical astronomy), but is listening on the right frequencies (1.42 GHz?). Not only that, but what if whoever was listening simply disregarded the incoming transmission as useless 'noise'?

Radio waves, just like any other excited energy phenomenon, do not last indefinitely. They are scattered and absorbed by interstellar gas clouds, lensed and redirected by gravity and magnetic fields from stars and other objects, while eventually their energies fall below minimum detection thresholds of all but the most sophisticated of listening devices.

Good resources: http://www.vectorsite.net/taseti.html

http://www.seti.org

Lastly, it is only human hubris which would assume that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

Posted by: Lagomorph Sep 15 2006, 06:45 PM

While we've been broadcasting signals into space for 100 years, and that gives us a reach of 100 light years, it would also mean a 100 year wait for the reply.

Getting a reply requires that any other planet would be able to recieve radio signals, and resend the signals back. If they're even at a point where they could understand those signals.

Considering it's taken 150,000 years for us to get to a point of 100 years worth of broadcasting. There's no telling what state any other planet might be in by the time that our signals reach them. And 100 years isn't even a half blink in astronomical time scales, if in 20,000 years we haven't heard anything back, then it might be easier to say that we don't have any direct 10,000 light year or less neigbors.

Personally, I find it silly to think we're beautiful and unique snowflakes in the universe, but with our current abilities, it'll take a long time to be able to reach out to a planet with the ability to contact on our means of communication.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 15 2006, 07:31 PM

QUOTE (Derek)

Umm, let me see, my degree is in physics, so while not a definite indicator, it's a good sign that I am not a creationist.

why is that a good sign? i’m into intelligent design but I love science, physics, science fiction, shadowrun (with all it’s cyber, science, magic and noted lack of theology) and other RPGs, the science and history channels (the history channel often having programs along the scientific vein), et cetera.

i just want you to know that someone like me can be open to many things – i’m not just a creationist.

QUOTE (nezumi)

To be fair, no one specified this discussion is only open to scientific views. The question was, if there are other planets out there, where are the aliens? if religion has an answer, I for one don't see why having it posted here gets your panties in such a twist.

thanks to nezumi here. derek, if your title or first post had mentioned that creationism wasn’t wanted or that it was ‘scientific answers only’, i would’ve happily kept my spiritual views out. but if you’re going to ask a question about the creation of [not necessarily human] life in a public forum, then you need to be prepared to receive an answer that includes God, unless you specify first that those answers are not wanted. and please note that from now on i’ll know that you don’t want to hear it and that i'll refrain from posting it.

QUOTE (Witness)

thanks also to witness - his is the post that brought be back in. i refuse to engage in arguments, as they get you nowhere; but a debate/discussion is something that can help you learn.

a) i don’t believe that scientists are out to ‘fool’ everyone. i believe that scientists do us (humanity) a great service by exploring our world and discovering new things about it. i simply don’t believe that science can hold many answers to anything ‘big’ at this point since we (all humans) only have a human understanding of the world/universe and can’t possibly know more than a fraction of what’s really going on.

b) “incontrovertible: not open to question or dispute; indisputable”. i do not dispute that there is evidence to support evolution – but i do dispute said evidence’s validity. again, i simply believe that our knowledge of the world around us, vast as it is, just isn’t vast enough. we only know a fraction of what there is to know, so how can we claim that the ‘evidence’ we’re looking at isn’t something completely different than what we’ve ‘concluded’ it to be?

i absorb information from all available sources (christian, scientific, et cetera) – and i take all of my learned knowledge with a grain of salt until one of two things happens:

1) someone comes up with a way to 100% prove that the information is correct
2) i gather enough supporting information to make up my own mind, without the influence of others

and at this point, the things science has shown me are just not enough to make me believe that it holds the answers to questions such as ‘where did we come from?’ that doesn’t mean i’m dismissing what scientists have to say (like militant christians do) – it just means that i take what they say and file it away for future use. maybe one day #1 above will happen proving me wrong about evolution; or perhaps one day all of the science knowledge i’ve gathered will be enough for me to accept evolution as being valid…i’m open to that. but for now, i choose to continue to believe that we were created by God because it’s what makes more sense to me.

to close, please note that i never meant to hijack derek’s thread – and i apologize to those who have been trying to keep this thread on track. i only wanted those who read this thread to think about all of the possibilities of why there may not be other life out there or why they may not have contacted us yet if there is. if anyone wants to continue a religious vs. science debate, please start up a new thread and link to it here.

Posted by: Firewall Sep 15 2006, 07:58 PM

QUOTE (nezumi)

As for the latter, the only people I've seen fly off the handle so far are the anti-religious. It occurs to me that they're the ones who should be chastised, not the person who honestly thinks he's contributing to the conversation.

I am not anti-religious, I just know how to keep my religion separate from scientific discussion. I recognise that science requires understanding, faith needs only belief. Of course, I also understand that most of what my religion tells me is not literal. If you can understand that some things are metaphor, you can often find that science is the best place to look for scientific answers.

What I object to is people who put forth Christian dogma as fact without even thinking that some of us are not Christian...

Posted by: nezumi Sep 15 2006, 08:25 PM

Firewall, my comments were aimed primarily at whoever posted the very insulting comment a few days ago on the first page which is now (fortunately) deleted. I'll admit that Derek also is being a little hostile against viewpoints he doesn't agree with here.

To answer Derek's statement earlier that the rules of DSF, not the constitution apply here - keep in mind, this entire thread, being not in any way related to Shadowrun, shouldn't exist. So Craig has just as much of a right to give a religious answer to your non-SR question as you have to post it.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 15 2006, 08:25 PM

QUOTE (Firewall)

What I object to is people who put forth Christian dogma as fact without even thinking that some of us are not Christian...

what i object to is people who put forth scientific dogma as fact without even thinking that some of us are Christian...

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Sep 15 2006, 08:51 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

1) someone comes up with a way to 100% prove that the information is correct
2) i gather enough supporting information to make up my own mind, without the influence of others.

UM,

#1 That will never happen. I have never seen a real researcher say thats 100% the reason why things work, because well, they know they dont know it all. And any scientist/researcher says other wise is selling something.

#2 Do you do all your own experiments? And what supporting information are you gethering? Because if its supporting something then you already have made up your mind and are just looking for proof that it fits in the puzzle you have already made. If you arent doing all your own experiements then you are goign to get information that will influence you one way or another. If you are anti-something, all you have to do is look around, for the right price youll find a doctor that says what you want him to say and support your side, lawyers do it all the time for trials.

Not picking on you specifically or religion in general. But holding those kinds of rules in place to define what you believe is rather absurd. I mean I know airplanes fly and I know what I was told about how they do it and it seems logical. But I have never done aerodynamic testing on airplanes, so for all I know everything I was told is a lie and magic pixies carry the airplanes around. Science works on probablities and works to make those probablities as close to 100% as possible. The chances of life being on another planet is pretty damn probable, but till we find it, its just a possibility. So far the bible is winning by saying we are the one and only, but time will tell.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 15 2006, 09:34 PM

sorry - i didn't mean to explain myself so vaguely.

QUOTE (Frag-o Delux)

Do you do all your own experiments? And what supporting information are you gethering? Because if its supporting something then you already have made up your mind and are just looking for proof that it fits in the puzzle you have already made.

when someone tells me something, i can choose to believe it or not. if not, then all that means is that i don't believe it yet.

at that point, i have no pre-conceived notion as to how that puzzle will be solved, so any new information could potentially shed light on that subject - for better or worse. and maybe i can't figure out how that new info fits into the puzzle, but i'm open to the fact that other people could be able to explain it to me.

now, you have to understand that when we're talking about 99% of scientific stuff, my defenses are not that hard. i can accept things that the scientific community says very easily. i trust them to know what they know because they work hard to gain that knowledge.

it's that 1% of science that tries to explain the big questions like 'where did we come from' that i have to be very defensive against, because there's a BIG difference between there being a God and not. that's a belief that i take very seriously and i don't let christians or scientists or christian scientists or anyone mess with it without a fight.

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Sep 15 2006, 10:20 PM

I dont think people would attack religion as much if they do if the looneys would stay off the street corners or knocking on doors. I have no care what people believe. But when they try to ram it down my throat I have to fight it back. Which really is the wrong way to get people to follow your cause. Not yours since I dont see you as a bible thumper, but your cause as in the church trying to get more followers.

Who knows, maybe the galaxy is a giant ant farm for omnipotent super beings watching us run around.

But I tend to think not. Because just as you see proof that he exsists because we are here and the book says so, I see us being here a shear probability and the book a nice fabel writen by people that were the minority of their time and were affraid of everything around them, so decided to write their belifes and way of life down so their kids would be able to live it if they should be killed.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 16 2006, 01:24 AM

thanks frag-o.

religion in this topic is now dead. this one however... http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=14662&st=0#entry448626

Posted by: Frag-o Delux Sep 16 2006, 02:29 AM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

thanks frag-o.

religion in this topic is now dead. this one however... http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=14662&st=0#entry448626

Call me cynical, but am I being blamed for something?

I was just agreeing with you.

Posted by: Domino Sep 16 2006, 05:12 AM

You are cynical, too much Daily Show for you young man.

Posted by: craigpierce Sep 16 2006, 03:14 PM

no no - i was being serious. thank you for the straightforward opinion - just because we don't see directly eye-to-eye doesn't mean you have to flame me and i appreciate that.

oh, and i think that you're right about the 'looneys' - most of them want only something for themselves and make it hard on the rest of us who are just normal people who don't want anything special from anyone just because we're religious.

Posted by: eidolon Sep 16 2006, 04:10 PM

QUOTE (craigpierce)

oh, and i think that you're right about the 'looneys' - most of them want only something for themselves and make it hard on the rest of us who are just normal people who don't want anything special from anyone just because we're religious.

Now there's a sentiment that not only I can agree with, but that has related examples that we can all see.

Think of the retarded V:tM larpers that go around trying to "scare" people by telling them "I'm really a vampire, and I drink blood, you should play my game", and what kind of impression that creates in the layperson as to what "role playing games" mean. (Note: nothing against general players of V:tM, or even larpers, but I know that the sane ones of you out there hate these jackasses too.

)

/mypartinthishijack

Posted by: Witness Sep 17 2006, 10:16 AM

QUOTE (craigpierce @ Sep 15 2006, 02:31 PM)

a) i don’t believe that scientists are out to ‘fool’ everyone. i believe that scientists do us (humanity) a great service by exploring our world and discovering new things about it. i simply don’t believe that science can hold many answers to anything ‘big’ at this point since we (all humans) only have a human understanding of the world/universe and can’t possibly know more than a fraction of what’s really going on.

b) “incontrovertible: not open to question or dispute; indisputable”. i do not dispute that there is evidence to support evolution – but i do dispute said evidence’s validity. again, i simply believe that our knowledge of the world around us, vast as it is, just isn’t vast enough. we only know a fraction of what there is to know, so how can we claim that the ‘evidence’ we’re looking at isn’t something completely different than what we’ve ‘concluded’ it to be?

i absorb information from all available sources (christian, scientific, et cetera) – and i take all of my learned knowledge with a grain of salt until one of two things happens:

1) someone comes up with a way to 100% prove that the information is correct
2) i gather enough supporting information to make up my own mind, without the influence of others

and at this point, the things science has shown me are just not enough to make me believe that it holds the answers to questions such as ‘where did we come from?’ that doesn’t mean i’m dismissing what scientists have to say (like militant christians do) – it just means that i take what they say and file it away for future use. maybe one day #1 above will happen proving me wrong about evolution; or perhaps one day all of the science knowledge i’ve gathered will be enough for me to accept evolution as being valid…i’m open to that. but for now, i choose to continue to believe that we were created by God because it’s what makes more sense to me.

to close, please note that i never meant to hijack derek’s thread – and i apologize to those who have been trying to keep this thread on track. i only wanted those who read this thread to think about all of the possibilities of why there may not be other life out there or why they may not have contacted us yet if there is. if anyone wants to continue a religious vs. science debate, please start up a new thread and link to it here.

Thanks for responding, craigpierce, and for doing so with some dignity. I hope nobody minds if I respond with some information that I hope is fairly on-topic.

Now naturally I don't know what flavour of creationism you support, and I may be putting words in your mouth, but it seems to me that you probably dispute two main things: that the Earth is billions of years old, and that all the species arose from a single common ancestor, via the process of evolution.

You suggest in a) that there isn't enough evidence to answer any 'big' questions like this, and in b) that the evidence has been misinterpreted, while later in your post you say that you are hoping to gather enough information to make up your own mind. Fair enough. I'd encourage you to read around the subject and conduct whatever studies you can for yourself. I have, and it's been very rewarding.

Firstly, find out about radiometric dating. There are tonnes of different techniques out there, their validity has been tried and tested, and I think it's fair to say that it's pretty obvious scientists understand the physics of nuclear decay, since if they did not we would not have nuclear power stations and nuclear bombs (yay us). It's remarkable how much these different methods agree when it comes to the age of the Earth and the geological strata, and how different studies of different geological strata in different parts of the world mesh together to produce a coherent picture of the Earth's history. Also you might want to study various theoretical models of the internal workings of the sun, the Earth, planet formation etc. Yes, they're just models, but the point is that they all explain the observable facts, and no 'young Earth' model seems to do that.

Secondly, I've heard many creationists like Kent Hovind mock how humans could possibly be related to plants when we're so obviously different. However I encourage you to look at cells from both under a microscope, because at this scale they are much more obviously related. I'm sure you'll also enjoy finding out about various less well known organisms out there that are neither animal nor plant but a little of both.

You can go a little further than the microscope, and study the molecules within cells (I do this for a living now), like DNA or proteins. It rapidly becomes very clear that animals and plants share many very similar proteins. What's really cool (and you can do this for yourself) is that you can take the sequence of a particular protein (a human protein, say) and search a very large database (such as NCBI, which anybody can use) for related molecules. Not only do you get a large number of hits across different organisms, but you can see for yourself (and I recommend testing this out on a large range of different proteins, since the data set is incomplete and different proteins evolve more rapidly than others because they are less important) that the most similar non-human sequences will be from organisms like chimpanzees and other primates, then other mammals, then reptiles, then amphibians, and so on. In other words, this totally supports the single common ancestor idea, and the tree of life as it has been estimated by older methods, such as the morphology of living and fossil species. It's very cool. The agreement isn't total, of course, and molecular studies have led to some fairly major revisions in the tips of some branches on the tree of life. That's fine, but that's just the details. The 'big picture' remains very much intact.

I'd also point you in the direction of various computer simulations ('A-life') because, again coming from a very different direction, these are quite effective at showing that evolution can do what it is said to do, and that some pretty surprising, complex and wonderful forms and behaviours can emerge, unbidden, from a fairly simple set of rules (read about Thomas Ray's 'Tierra', for example).

Without going on and on, the point is that there is absolutely tonnes of evidence out there, of very different types and origins. Of the evidence that scientists are unable to find fault with (scientists are pretty savage about finding faults with evidence, because that's how the whole discipline works), all of it says that the Earth is ancient and that living things descend from a microbial ancestor.

You're quite right to want to sift through the evidence yourself, and I hope you do. If you're anything like me you'll really get a kick out of the journey, so good luck and enjoy the view. I was a christian until my early 20s, as it happens, but I experienced way more heart-pumping eye-opening 'cosmic' revelations on this journey than I ever did in church.

Posted by: Witness Sep 17 2006, 11:22 AM

QUOTE (grendel @ Sep 15 2006, 01:41 PM)

Lastly, it is only human hubris which would assume that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

Getting more firmly back on topic: I'd argue it is only 'human hubris' that assumes that intelligent life would share our own particular motives or technological drive.

QUOTE (Douglas Adams)

Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much- the wheel, New York, wars and so on- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man- for precisely the same reason.

In fact I'd argue that the pursuit of technology to leave Earth and the desire to contact ET aren't even all that widespread amongst humans- there's actually only a tiny number of people out there who are actually doing anything about it.