 Earthlike Planets May be Common...., Then where the hell is everybody? |
  |
 Sep 15 2006, 02:54 AM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Jacked In, Up & Out  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 232 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Oceanside, CA Member No.: 95  |
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 |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 04:17 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 20-December 05 Member No.: 8,088 |
Well said Derek.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 04:56 AM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 16-August 06 Member No.: 9,131 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 06:27 AM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 03:28 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Jacked In, Up & Out Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 232 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Oceanside, CA Member No.: 95 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 03:39 PM
Post
#31
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 03:57 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 681 Joined: 28-February 06 From: UK Member No.: 8,319 |
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? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 04:13 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
That's it, use logic against the creationist! That'll win him over for sure! :S |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 04:23 PM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 681 Joined: 28-February 06 From: UK Member No.: 8,319 |
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! ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 04:33 PM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Touche.
;-) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 05:54 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Jacked In, Up & Out Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 232 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Oceanside, CA Member No.: 95 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 06:21 PM
Post
#37
|
|||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
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. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 15 2006, 06:41 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,763 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Special Hell Member No.: 284 |
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 Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence Lastly, it is only human hubris which would assume that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 06:45 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 834 Joined: 30-June 03 Member No.: 4,832 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 07:31 PM
Post
#40
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 25-August 04 From: Denver, CO Member No.: 6,599 |
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.
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.
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. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Sep 15 2006, 07:58 PM
Post
#41
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 313 Joined: 5-March 04 From: UK Member No.: 6,125 |
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... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 08:25 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2006, 08:25 PM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 25-August 04 From: Denver, CO Member No.: 6,599 |
what i object to is people who put forth scientific dogma as fact without even thinking that some of us are Christian... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 08:51 PM
Post
#44
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,213 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Back from the abyss. Member No.: 2,316 |
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 09:34 PM
Post
#45
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 25-August 04 From: Denver, CO Member No.: 6,599 |
sorry - i didn't mean to explain myself so vaguely.
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 15 2006, 10:20 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,213 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Back from the abyss. Member No.: 2,316 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2006, 01:24 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 25-August 04 From: Denver, CO Member No.: 6,599 |
thanks frag-o.
religion in this topic is now dead. this one however... oh the flaming horor of this hellish thread |
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2006, 02:29 AM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,213 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Back from the abyss. Member No.: 2,316 |
Call me cynical, but am I being blamed for something? :) I was just agreeing with you. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 16 2006, 05:12 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 498 Joined: 31-May 02 From: All the way in the Back to the Left. Member No.: 2,800 |
You are cynical, too much Daily Show for you young man.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 16 2006, 03:14 PM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 398 Joined: 25-August 04 From: Denver, CO Member No.: 6,599 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th November 2025 - 03:02 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.