Life elsewhere

[DaneaFL]

I will say this though, when evolution is revealed for the lie that it is, atheists will quickly jump on the "aliens are the intelligent being that brought life to earth" bus...which is sad.

All these "evolution verses creation" threads will become "alien or God" threads...and will have the same amount of absolute evidence...none.

I can't argue with someone like you who already knows all the answers.

It's just sad that every time a whisper of evidence that's contrary to your position makes it way up to the backwoods hills where you live, it's immediately drown out by the roar of your whole town singing a 200 year old hymn....

...and some banjo music.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Meh, creationism haz arraivt.

*unsubscribes*

 

[jpcedotal]

I can't argue with someone like you who already knows all the answers.

It's just sad that every time a whisper of evidence that's contrary to your position makes it way up to the backwoods hills where you live, it's immediately drown out by the roar of your whole town singing a 200 year old hymn....

...and some banjo music.

I like banjo music...

 

[jpcedotal]

It is the same "golly, the universe is so big there has just gotta be life out there" line of thinking is the same one that suckered educated atheists (oxymoron) into "Golly, if there were millions of years in our past then evolution must be real." Here let me throw out a couple of cool looking bones...errr, I mean planets and say there is a chance this is evidence...yawn.

Just a waste of brain power.

I like my backwoods thinking a lot better than that junk.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

It is the same "golly, the universe is so big there has just gotta be life out there" line of thinking is the same one that suckered educated atheists (oxymoron) into "Golly, if there were millions of years in our past then evolution must be real." Here let me throw out a couple of cool looking bones...errr, I mean planets and say there is a chance this is evidence...yawn.

Just a waste of brain power.

I like my backwoods thinking a lot better than that junk.

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed!

 

[TheReasoner]

Meh, creationism haz arraivt.

*unsubscribes*

*sigh* yeah. How did such a crazy twist end up getting so many adherents in the US? And couldn't they jolly well be content with their own country harboring the nonsense? Why all this exporting of it as well?

Oh well. I think I'll follow your example. It started off as a good thread though.

 

[TheReasoner]

-

 

[Jazer]

It is the same "golly, the universe is so big there has just gotta be life out there" line of thinking

Actually the argument is that the elements are the same everywhere in the universe. The laws are all the same. So there is reason to believe the elements would form life pretty much the same way as the were joined together into life here. Along with the belief that this is a living universe, not a dead one.

Although evos like to fight with themselves. There are people like Gould who believe even if you stated all over here on earth with all the same conditions, that it would all turn out totally different from the way it did. So there are lots of different conflicting theories when it comes to evolution.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

When it comes to the subject of life elswhere I tend to agre with Stephen Hawking. Life most certainly exists elsewhere, but we should be cautious.

 

[Elendur]

When it comes to the subject of life elswhere I tend to agre with Stephen Hawking. Life most certainly exists elsewhere, but we should be cautious.

As I see it there's are three cases:
1. There isn't anything out there (life).
2. There is life out there, but it's no threat.
3. There is life out there, and it's a threat.

If they can get here they certainly have the technology to be nr 3, which always should trigger some sort of caution. (Not saying they couldn't be nr 2, but one shouldn't be that optimistic with such a high stake)

 

[TheReasoner]

As I see it there's are three cases:
1. There isn't anything out there (life).
2. There is life out there, but it's no threat.
3. There is life out there, and it's a threat.

If they can get here they certainly have the technology to be nr 3, which always should trigger some sort of caution. (Not saying they couldn't be nr 2, but one shouldn't be that optimistic with such a high stake)

Echoed. Which makes me a little skeptical to the part of SETI sending signals out into space to make contact. Listen? All for it. Very much so. Seeking to make contact? Er... We don't know what's out there, but if we are any good indication it might indeed be violent if it is out there. So... Careful, tiny grasshoppah!


It - number 3 - is in my opinion also an argument for colonization. If we are small, we're easily taken down. If we are many, not so much. Also, colonization can counter other threats to the species. GRBs, asteroid impacts.. The works. It makes sense to spread, and not so much to just stay put. That said, someone on here said we should focus on the inner space first, our oceans. I was not too eager for that at first, and still am not all too gun-ho about it. But it does make sense. We'd be safer if we also spread to the ocean floor. Bottom line is: SPREAD!

 

[Elendur]

Echoed. Which makes me a little skeptical to the part of SETI sending signals out into space to make contact. Listen? All for it. Very much so. Seeking to make contact? Er... We don't know what's out there, but if we are any good indication it might indeed be violent if it is out there. So... Careful, tiny grasshoppah!


It - number 3 - is in my opinion also an argument for colonization. If we are small, we're easily taken down. If we are many, not so much. Also, colonization can counter other threats to the species. GRBs, asteroid impacts.. The works. It makes sense to spread, and not so much to just stay put. That said, someone on here said we should focus on the inner space first, our oceans. I was not too eager for that at first, and still am not all too gun-ho about it. But it does make sense. We'd be safer if we also spread to the ocean floor. Bottom line is: SPREAD!

Perhaps with a slight paranoid tinge, but still

 

[TheReasoner]

Perhaps with a slight paranoid tinge, but still

I realize that. But at the same time - at least if we exclude the aliens from the equation for now - it seems prudent to make plans to avert the extinction of the species if worst comes to worst. And, well... We may be talking small chances for something going wrong, but to me this appears to be a case of wearing the seatbelt or not wearing it. Most times when you drive you will not be in an accident. But if you ARE in one, the seatbelt could very well save your life. And in this "car ride" we're talking about the species as a whole. Low probability or not - can we afford the risk? I think not.

To me at least it makes a lot of sense to spread, but nothing really appears to argue against expansion.

We could expand, and the results would inarguably be:

• Smaller chance of extinction
• Increased technological and scientific advances associated with the expansion effort
• it's awesome - and cool!

and against:

• chirp chirp chirp

Seriously though, what are the arguments against? It will take a lot of work? Since when was that ever a good argument against anything? Doing anything seriously worth something takes work. Getting a degree, building a house, maintaining a free and good society... But it's worth it, right? Isn't survival worth it, too?

 

[Elendur]

I realize that. But at the same time - at least if we exclude the aliens from the equation for now - it seems prudent to make plans to avert the extinction of the species if worst comes to worst. And, well... We may be talking small chances for something going wrong, but to me this appears to be a case of wearing the seatbelt or not wearing it. Most times when you drive you will not be in an accident. But if you ARE in one, the seatbelt could very well save your life. And in this "car ride" we're talking about the species as a whole. Low probability or not - can we afford the risk? I think not.

To me at least it makes a lot of sense to spread, but nothing really appears to argue against expansion.

We could expand, and the results would inarguably be:

• Smaller chance of extinction
• Increased technological and scientific advances associated with the expansion effort
• it's awesome - and cool!

and against:

• chirp chirp chirp

Seriously though, what are the arguments against? It will take a lot of work? Since when was that ever a good argument against anything? Doing anything seriously worth something takes work. Getting a degree, building a house, maintaining a free and good society... But it's worth it, right? Isn't survival worth it, too?

I agree I'm trying to find something to argue against to not sound so cheesy but I can't fund anything

 

[DaneaFL]

• Smaller chance of extinction
• Increased technological and scientific advances associated with the expansion effort
• it's awesome - and cool!

I think Neil Degrasse Tyson would definitely agree with you.

Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: What NASA Means to America's Future - YouTube

Every time we have a good reason to go into space we always end up inventing some really good technology that we can use here on earth.

NASA has some of the best engineers and technologists in the world... too bad they have no funding. It's sad that it takes a war to make our government want to invest in space.

They can't see past the next election cycle to what a well-funded NASA would actually do for us in the long run.

3. There is life out there, and it's a threat.

If they can get here they certainly have the technology to be nr 3, which always should trigger some sort of caution. (Not saying they couldn't be nr 2, but one shouldn't be that optimistic with such a high stake)

I think it's far less likely that any aliens we met will be the dangerous monsters that Hollywood invents.

If life evolved on the alien world with any similarities to evolution on earth, then I think it's safe to assume they will probably have the same altruistic and empathetic emotions that we do. (see Richard Dawkin's The selfish gene)

If on the alien world it was ever beneficial for them to become social animals (which I think is a requirement for any advanced civilization) then they must have some form of compassionate cooperation in their society.

 

[Elendur]

I think it's far less likely that any aliens we met will be the dangerous monsters that Hollywood invents.

If life evolved on the alien world with any similarities to evolution on earth, then I think it's safe to assume they will probably have the same altruistic and empathetic emotions that we do. (see Richard Dawkin's The selfish gene)

If on the alien world it was ever beneficial for them to become social animals (which I think is a requirement for any advanced civilization) then they must have some form of compassionate cooperation in their society.

I don't know anything about how likely their disposition is, one could just hope they are similar to us in their way of thinking