• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Drake equation... More than likely a race that is beyond this dimension we know...

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
24,717
5,558
46
Oregon
✟1,103,786.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Let's get back on course here...

Using the drake equation, and assuming abiogenesis is quite common, and following the principles in the theory of evolution, how likely is it, that, in this "entire universe" that there is other life like us, and how likely is it, using the drake equation that there is life higher than, or beyond us...?

God Bless!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The Drake equation... More than likely a race that is beyond this dimension we know...

The Drake equation from Wiki: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiH7qHn2P_RAhVOx2MKHSK9Dh0QFghPMAw&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation&usg=AFQjCNGe27D0f6hSH4TIfoEZ8W39WCLoVw&sig2=bBYq2udjpA3sotBCeaZfkA&bvm=bv.146094739,d.cGc

Even if there is only one other planet in our galaxy, (though it proposes between 1000 at the minimum and 100,000 maximum), even if there was only one or two, like us or once like us (and is now further than us) Anyhow, if there were only one or two in our galaxy, there are trillions of galaxies, meaning, well, you do the math, how many civilizations like or once like us...?

Say there are or were trillions, since there are trillions of galaxies, how far did they get... I'll get to my point... My point is, at least one of them had to go beyond this realm, this dimension, into perhaps a matterless, timeless, and a place where space, time, and distance and matter and material as we know it does not matter, so to speak...

The odds are totally in favor of it, mathematically speaking...

Anyone disagree...?

Comments...?

Maybe they gave rise to A.I., maybe they exist in another dimension or type of reality now, maybe they've existed before this entire universe was, and this universe is like a computer program, that uses biological machines, (bioelectrochemical) and this is all a simulation created by and managed by them...

Consider the possibilities...

God Bless!

From a Christian standpoint it doesn't depend on probabilities, possibilities or happy accidents. So from a Christian standpoint Drake Equation is an expression of an atheistic belief in blind chance.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Let's get back on course here...

Using the drake equation, and assuming abiogenesis is quite common, and following the principles in the theory of evolution, how likely is it, that, in this "entire universe" that there is other life like us, and how likely is it, using the drake equation that there is life higher than, or beyond us...?

God Bless!

As I previously said, life will still be subject to physics.
Life is identified by matter engaged in certain behaviour.

The idea of "life free of matter" is nonsensical.

Also, evolution is not a ladder. There is no direction towards "better, stronger, smarter". Evolution is about shaping (physical) things to fit the habitat they find themselves in.

The concept of "evolving into non-physical beings" is also non-sensical. Because the evolutionary process depends on and requires the passing down of traits by means of a physical carrier upon which variation is accomplished through mutation of the carrier.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
24,717
5,558
46
Oregon
✟1,103,786.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
As I previously said, life will still be subject to physics.
Life is identified by matter engaged in certain behaviour.

The idea of "life free of matter" is nonsensical.

Also, evolution is not a ladder. There is no direction towards "better, stronger, smarter". Evolution is about shaping (physical) things to fit the habitat they find themselves in.

The concept of "evolving into non-physical beings" is also non-sensical. Because the evolutionary process depends on and requires the passing down of traits by means of a physical carrier upon which variation is accomplished through mutation of the carrier.
Yeah, "supposedly", according to you...

Except that humans find themselves in an environment or habitat that encourages them toward and in a direction towards getting "better, stronger, smarter"... And this will not change now, but will continue on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on... "getting the picture" yet...?

Our technological and social advancements will get better, and better, and better, and go further, and further, and further, and get more advanced, and more advanced, and more advanced, ect, ect...

But for the sake of argument, let's say life has to be in physical form, using the drake equation, assuming that abiogenesis is common, following evolution and considering the entire universe, do you suppose their is other life, still in the physical forms or bodies, who are way more advanced than we are, and theorize on what this kind of life could be like or has achieved...?

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, "supposedly", according to you...

No. According to reality.
There is no such thing as "matter-less" life.
Evolution is a physical process. Life is a physical phenomena.
Biology is organic matter interacting.

Except that humans find themselves in an environment or habitat that encourages them toward and in a direction towards getting "better, stronger, smarter"...

That's western culture and success in terms of wealth.

And this will not change now, but will continue on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on... "getting the picture" yet...?

I get the pictures. But it paints only your ignorance on the matter, it seems.

Our technological and social advancements will get better, and better, and better, and go further, and further, and further, and get more advanced, and more advanced, and more advanced, ect, ect...

And then a meterorite strikes or volcano goes off or we go into brutal nuclear warfare or some nasty germ evolves and it's game over.

Without our technology, we'ld be naked sitting ducks.

But for the sake of argument, let's say life has to be in physical form

Again, life IS a physical phenomena...

, using the drake equation, assuming that abiogenesis is common, following evolution and considering the entire universe, do you suppose their is other life, still in the physical forms or bodies, who are way more advanced than we are, and theorize on what this kind of life could be like or has achieved...?

Perhaps.

A good way to do this thought experiment, imo, is to simply look at the history of life on this planet and the amount of times certain traits have developed more then once.

The vast majority of life's history in this planet, has been single-celled. Multi-celled life is actually quite young, in geological terms. It took some 3 billion years for multi-celled organisms to appear.

Traits I would expect in multi-celled alien life, is first some sense of orientation. Sight, echo-location, "sensing" magnetic fields,...

Some type of locomotion. Also flight, especially if it also has "high" vegetation like tree-type things.

Advanced intelligence? I think it will be extremely rare.

Homo Sapiens only surfaced around 200.000 years ago. Real technological progress has only set in about 10.000 years ago. The "invention age" as I like to call it.
And for most of that 200.000 years, we were pretty clueless still. It took another 199.950 years, before we were capable of building a device that could leave earth's atmosphere.

So it took evolution on this planet 3.6 to 3.8 billion years to come up with a SINGLE species, capable of shooting satellites into space.

Then to think about everything that could have gone very wrong during those 200.000 years for us... Some 70k years ago, humans were on the brink of extinction as well, with a population size of a mere few thousand. Probably due to some vulcano event or alike.

So voila, my long-winded answer.


In short: I won't exclude it as a possibility, but I do expect it to be extremely rare. I expect MOST planets with life, to only have one-celled life.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
24,717
5,558
46
Oregon
✟1,103,786.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
No. According to reality.
There is no such thing as "matter-less" life.
Evolution is a physical process. Life is a physical phenomena.
Biology is organic matter interacting.

I still think that is highly debatable...

That's western culture and success in terms of wealth.

It is my belief that, if we're allowed to continue, and there is no divine intervention, we will continue to go only forward and not backward from here...

I get the pictures. But it paints only your ignorance on the matter, it seems.

OK...?

And then a meterorite strikes or volcano goes off or we go into brutal nuclear warfare or some nasty germ evolves and it's game over.

Without our technology, we'd be naked sitting ducks.

If that doesn't happen, then we'll continue to go only forward...

Again, life IS a physical phenomena...

Again, I think that is still highly debatable, were going based on "our" definition of "life"...



Perhaps.

A good way to do this thought experiment, imo, is to simply look at the history of life on this planet and the amount of times certain traits have developed more then once.

The vast majority of life's history in this planet, has been single-celled. Multi-celled life is actually quite young, in geological terms. It took some 3 billion years for multi-celled organisms to appear.

Traits I would expect in multi-celled alien life, is first some sense of orientation. Sight, echo-location, "sensing" magnetic fields,...

Telepathy, having thought or word warfare, by projecting and forcing our thoughts upon others, maybe...?

Some type of locomotion. Also flight, especially if it also has "high" vegetation like tree-type things.

Advanced intelligence? I think it will be extremely rare.

Homo Sapiens only surfaced around 200.000 years ago. Real technological progress has only set in about 10.000 years ago. The "invention age" as I like to call it.
And for most of that 200.000 years, we were pretty clueless still. It took another 199.950 years, before we were capable of building a device that could leave earth's atmosphere.

Yet we are in the "invention age" now, and we are advancing so very rapidly compared to cosmic time, how far will we go in just a short period of time in the "information age" and did societies elsewhere before us already did...?

So it took evolution on this planet 3.6 to 3.8 billion years to come up with a SINGLE species, capable of shooting satellites into space.

Then to think about everything that could have gone very wrong during those 200.000 years for us... Some 70k years ago, humans were on the brink of extinction as well, with a population size of a mere few thousand. Probably due to some vulcano event or alike.

So voila, my long-winded answer.


In short: I won't exclude it as a possibility, but I do expect it to be extremely rare. I expect MOST planets with life, to only have one-celled life.

Even if their is only one other planet in this galaxy that has or had life like us, (which I suspect their is more, if abiogenesis is common) Then there are "trillions" of galaxies, so no matter how "rare" you think life like us is, if you believe abiogenesis is rather common on certain worlds, and that evolution is the way life happens, then...?

Even if life that was like us or once like us, in our galaxy, even if, in our galaxy, that kind of life, is like a "needle in haystack, yet a needle, or a few needles are there, and considering the universe, life that was like us or once like us, we'd have to be like a single grain of sand, of all the sand, in or on planet earth to be the "only ones"... That's how "rare" we would have to be...

And if you believe that abiogenesis happens here and elsewhere, rather commonly in the grand scheme of things, and evolution is the way of life from Abiogenesis, then considering the odds, if it were "only us" in the entire universe, we'd have to be like a "single grain of sand" in all of the sand on the "entire planet earth", for us to be the "only ones", like us, or once like us...

And if you believe in a abiogenesis and evolution, then we "cannot be" that "rare", or even anywhere near that rare, it's just not possible, according to that...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I still think that is highly debatable...

How on earth could that be debatable?
Life is a physical phenomena, that's just the way it is. You are welcome to point to any kind of life that isn't matter based. I won't be holding my breath.

It is my belief that, if we're allowed to continue, and there is no divine intervention, we will continue to go only forward and not backward from here...

Your mere beliefs are rather irrelevant.

If that doesn't happen, then we'll continue to go only forward...

It's actually quite inevitable that such a thing will eventually happen.
How big the damage will be, remains to be seen. Looking at the big extinction waves in history though, it's rather clear that it can turn VERY bad REALLY fast.

Again, I think that is still highly debatable, were going based on "our" definition of "life"...

Obviously..... why would we do otherwise?
As it stands, we have zero reason to assume that life is not a physical phenomena and every reason to think it is.

We have exactly zero examples of "matterless" life and gazitrillions of examples of the opposite.

Telepathy, having thought or word warfare, by projecting and forcing our thoughts upon others, maybe...?

Not a single time has this evolved, nore is there any reason to think it is even possible naturally.

Yet we are in the "invention age" now, and we are advancing so very rapidly compared to cosmic time, how far will we go in just a short period of time in the "information age" and did societies elsewhere before us already did...?

Perhaps. But as I said, I'ld expect it to be very rare among the already rare planets with life on them. For the simple reason that it took earth's life some 3.8 billion years before a SINGLE such species evolved, which even got lucky several times that it didn't went extinct. Once VERY lucky, some 70k years ago.

Even if their is only one other planet in this galaxy that has or had life like us, (which I suspect their is more, if abiogenesis is common) Then there are "trillions" of galaxies, so no matter how "rare" you think life like us is, if you believe abiogenesis is rather common on certain worlds, and that evolution is the way life happens, then...?

Even if life that was like us or once like us, in our galaxy, even if, in our galaxy, that kind of life, is like a "needle in haystack, yet a needle, or a few needles are there, and considering the universe, life that was like us or once like us, we'd have to be like a single grain of sand, of all the sand, in or on planet earth to be the "only ones"... That's how "rare" we would have to be...

And if you believe that abiogenesis happens here and elsewhere, rather commonly in the grand scheme of things, and evolution is the way of life from Abiogenesis, then considering the odds, if it were "only us" in the entire universe, we'd have to be like a "single grain of sand" in all of the sand on the "entire planet earth", for us to be the "only ones", like us, or once like us...

And if you believe in a abiogenesis and evolution, then we "cannot be" that "rare", or even anywhere near that rare, it's just not possible, according to that...

God Bless!

You have a strange definition of "rare".

Let's just stick to our galaxy. 200 billion stars.
Suppose there are 2 other planets with "intelligent" life that managed to build a technological society.

2 in 200 billion. I'ld call that pretty rare.
You have a better chance of winning the lottery a couple times in a row.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Just one lucky coincidence?

The population of Homo Sapiens was reduced to a mere few thousand in that particular instance. Today, we call such population sizes "endangered species".

To then not only bounce back, but to go on and populate the entire planet with a population size of +7 billion... that's pretty lucky, in my book.

The smallest setback during that period, would have caused homo sapiens to go extinct.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The population of Homo Sapiens was reduced to a mere few thousand in that particular instance. Today, we call such population sizes "endangered species".

To then not only bounce back, but to go on and populate the entire planet with a population size of +7 billion... that's pretty lucky, in my book.

The smallest setback during that period, would have caused homo sapiens to go extinct.


But the whole atheist concept starting with abiogenesis depends on one lucky coincidence after another until the mathematical probabilities become so unlikely as to be totally unacceptable unless one suspends disbelief and resorts to what strongly resembles to be blind faith. That's when the claim that "Well, if we are here that means that it must have happened that way!" is introduced. In fact, the expression "must have" is a favorite one in literature dealing with this subject. Sometimes it is even followed by the adverb "somehow" as in "must have somehow happened" or "must have somehow been" and other such expressions of belief in an admission that although they don't know they prefer to believe it anyway.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But the whole atheist concept starting with abiogenesis

The only "atheist concept" is an unbelief in supernatural deities.
Abiogenesis.... that's a science thingy.

depends on one lucky coincidence after another

I seem to be unfamiliar with this.

until the mathematical probabilities become so unlikely as to be totally unacceptable

We've been over this. The process of how life comes about is currently unknown. You can't calculate the probability of an unknown event occuring.

unless one suspends disbelief and resorts to what strongly resembles to be blind faith.

I don't need "faith" to accept that life originated in some way.
How it happened, is currently unknown (for the most part) and under scientific investigation.

That's when the claim that "Well, if we are here that means that it must have happened that way!" is introduced.

Not once did anyone here make such a claim, that claim being the "THAT way".
Everybody here with just a bit of knowledge on the matter, will tell you that how it happened is currently not known.

In fact, the expression "must have" is a favorite one in literature dealing with this subject. Sometimes it is even followed by the adverb "somehow" as in "must have somehow happened" or "must have somehow been" and other such expressions of belief in an admission that although they don't know they prefer to believe it anyway.

Unless you believe that life has always existed, you necessarily agree that it had to come about in some way, yes?

Even if it is through YEC ways. That's also an origination of living things.

Do you see your error now?

Life originated in some way. You, as a cdesign proponentsists / creationist, necessarilly agree with that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
24,717
5,558
46
Oregon
✟1,103,786.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
You have a strange definition of "rare".

Let's just stick to our galaxy. 200 billion stars.
Suppose there are 2 other planets with "intelligent" life that managed to build a technological society.

2 in 200 billion. I'ld call that pretty rare.
You have a better chance of winning the lottery a couple times in a row.

K, 2 in 200 billion, per galaxy... And "how many" galaxies are there...? Trillions, right...? You do the math...

If you don't believe and exclusive creation by a God, and you believe the "other", then there should be many, many, "more" species and planets capable of supporting intelligent life, and having intelligent life on them, just in our own galaxy alone...

Then multiply that times the trillions of galaxies...? Again, you do the math and consider "what kind" and types and levels of life there should be...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,307
10,189
✟287,367.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
But the whole atheist concept starting with abiogenesis depends on one lucky coincidence after another until the mathematical probabilities become so unlikely as to be totally unacceptable unless one suspends disbelief and resorts to what strongly resembles to be blind faith.
I believe I have seen you post similar statements before. If my recollection is correct I would just note that it makes me very uncomfortable to see you inaccurately label abiogenesis as an atheist concept. That is factually incorrect.

I suspect you have seen that correction made a number of times on this forum. That being the case it would make me feel spiritually a lot more comfortable if you acknowledged that by the simple expedient of not repeating your error.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I believe I have seen you post similar statements before. If my recollection is correct I would just note that it makes me very uncomfortable to see you inaccurately label abiogenesis as an atheist concept. That is factually incorrect.

I suspect you have seen that correction made a number of times on this forum. That being the case it would make me feel spiritually a lot more comfortable if you acknowledged that by the simple expedient of not repeating your error.

I am not denying that there are those who attempt to reconcile abiogenesis with their belief in a creator. I am merely saying that it is a necessary facet of atheism.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,307
10,189
✟287,367.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I am not denying that there are those who attempt to reconcile abiogenesis with their belief in a creator. I am merely saying that it is a necessary facet of atheism.
No. Incorrect.

I would accept that a good case can be made that it is an important facet of what I shall call active atheism. That is atheism wherein the atheist sees their disbelief in gods as a significant part of their character. However there are plenty of atheists who are completely indifferent to the notion of gods. Some of them will also be completely indifferent to the notion of abiogenesis. Not everyone is Richard Dawkins. (Fortunately.) You really need to stop conflating the two. It is arguably disreputable.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I can't remember whether I have made this comment before on this thread, but even if ET is out there, and even if he is living on a planet orbiting Alpha Proxima, if we sent him a message today, enquiring after his health, it would be 2026 before we got to learn that he had had a bad cold in the March of 2017.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,539
2,726
USA
Visit site
✟150,380.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
No. Incorrect.

I would accept that a good case can be made that it is an important facet of what I shall call active atheism. That is atheism wherein the atheist sees their disbelief in gods as a significant part of their character. However there are plenty of atheists who are completely indifferent to the notion of gods. Some of them will also be completely indifferent to the notion of abiogenesis. Not everyone is Richard Dawkins. (Fortunately.) You really need to stop conflating the two. It is arguably disreputable.


The term agnostic describes what you are describing just fine for me. You need to stop conflating the twain.

BTW
The type of person who is totally indifferent to the concept of God or gods wouldn't frequent a religious forum. IMHO.
 
Upvote 0