Would life on Mars be a problem for your religious beliefs?

[CabVet]

We are a planet and a moon. So what is the chance of having a planet the size of our Earth, with a moon the size of our moon, about the same distance from a sun the size of our sun. Also the distance of the moon and earth from each other is a important factor to create the conditions that we have on earth.

Those conditions are not necessary to sustain life. While the moon is essential for life on earth as we know it (because life on earth evolved under its influence), it is by no means necessary for life to develop in the first place. If you are interested in know what the conditions really are, check this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability

Also, as florida2 said, there are approximately 100 billion and 400 billion stars in the milky way alone. If the chances are 1 in a million to fit the right conditions we would end up with 100,000-400,000 planets like earth.

 

[florida2]

Those conditions are not necessary to sustain life. While the moon is essential for life on earth as we know it (because life on earth evolved under its influence), it is by no means necessary for life to develop in the first place. If you are interested in know what the conditions really are, check this:

Planetary habitability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, as florida2 said, there are approximately 100 billion and 400 billion stars in the milky way alone. If the chances are 1 in a million to fit the right conditions we would end up with 100,000-400,000 planets like earth.

It's now thought that virtually every star will have at least one planet, if not a system, increasing the chances further.

It's very difficult for us to imagine life under different circumstances to that on Earth. There may be silicon based life or other types which we haven't even thought of.

 

[freezerman2000]

It's now thought that virtually every star will have at least one planet, if not a system, increasing the chances further.

It's very difficult for us to imagine life under different circumstances to that on Earth. There may be silicon based life or other types which we haven't even thought of.

You and I see things the same way!

 

[SkyWriting]

The closest dozen starts average 8 light years away. The nearest star to us is over 4 light years away.
So a cell phone conversation would take 8 years per text message for a response.
A space craft circles the globe once per hour but light speed would be 7 times per second.

Currently it would take 50,000 years to get to the next star.
That's only 5000 if we multiply that speed by 10.
And 500 years if 10 times that.
And 50 years if 10 times that.
5 years if 10 times that, but we bump into light speed limits there.

But nobody has predicted life on the next star system. Most of the nearby stars are dimmer than our Sun, by factors of 100 to 10,000. Predictions have been made that 1 or 2% of stars could have planets like an earth. So ,on average, you'd have to visit 50 to 100 more stars before finding an earth life planet. And there is a lot of speeding up and slowing down between star systems. The main problem being that there is no fuel in space between the stars and you'd have to take some fuel with you for the trip. Of course the longer the trip, the bigger your load that needs to be accelerated to 50,000 times our current speed capacity. I'd prefer a 2 year round trip myself, but the speed of light limits us to an 8 year round trip at the speed of an electron.

Plus time will go faster for earth than for the lightspeed craft so the 8 years tip may get stretched out or time compressed for the light-craft, which would be nice. 8 years in a space ship would be annoying.

And if you hit any debris on the trip, it's pretty much over at any speed.

Yes...and your point is?

Maybe you should read the OP and see if my post applies to the topic.

 

[SkyWriting]

And now you moved the goalpost big time. First you perhaps want to define where the line goes, what's an intelligent choice and what's an unintelligent choice?

You may choose the goalpost position if you wish.
I don't mind.

 

[The Engineer]

The closest dozen starts average 8 light years away. The nearest star to us is over 4 light years away.
So a cell phone conversation would take 8 years per text message for a response.
A space craft circles the globe once per hour but light speed would be 7 times per second.

Currently it would take 50,000 years to get to the next star.
That's only 5000 if we multiply that speed by 10.
And 500 years if 10 times that.
And 50 years if 10 times that.
5 years if 10 times that, but we bump into light speed limits there.

That's completely irrelevant to the argument.

But nobody has predicted life on the next star system. Most of the nearby stars are dimmer than our Sun, by factors of 100 to 10,000.

Source? That's the first time I ever hear this claim.

Predictions have been made that 1 or 2% of stars could have planets like an earth. So ,on average, you'd have to visit 50 to 100 more stars before finding an earth life planet. And there is a lot of speeding up and slowing down between star systems. The main problem being that there is no fuel in space between the stars and you'd have to take some fuel with you for the trip. Of course the longer the trip, the bigger your load that needs to be accelerated to 50,000 times our current speed capacity. I'd prefer a 2 year round trip myself, but the speed of light limits us to an 8 year round trip at the speed of an electron.

So? Again, how is that relevant?

Plus time will go faster for earth than for the lightspeed craft so the 8 years tip may get stretched out or time compressed for the light-craft, which would be nice. 8 years in a space ship would be annoying.

And if you hit any debris on the trip, it's pretty much over at any speed.

Now I understand! There is no relevance! There never was!

 

[Elendur]

You may choose the goalpost position if you wish.
I don't mind.

I only care if the goalpost remains the same. You wrote that animals have no choice, admit that you're wrong before starting another argument.

 

[CabVet]

I only care if the goalpost remains the same. You wrote that animals have no choice, admit that you're wrong before starting another argument.

Don't hold your breath! Goalposts will be moved much further before he admits such thing!

 

[SkyWriting]

That's completely irrelevant to the argument.
So? Again, how is that relevant?
Now I understand! There is no relevance! There never was!

Interesting how multiple people will argue that God cannot be proven by science
and will dismiss entirely scientific facts directly pertaining to this "argument"
about how the issue cannot be proven.

 

[SkyWriting]

Don't hold your breath! Goalposts will be moved much further before he admits such thing!

As I said, you may place the goalposts or definition of "Choice"
where you choose. We will start from there.

If you say a jellyfish or an ant makes choices, then I'll retract my initial claim
and make a new one with clarification. Grow some guts man.

 

[CabVet]

As I said, you may place the goalposts or definition of "Choice"
where you choose. We will start from there.

If you say a jellyfish or an ant makes choices, then I'll retract my initial claim and make a new one with clarification. Grow some guts man.

Oh, time to start insulting now? My morals (not my religion) stop me from answering at the same level, so I will refrain from it.

Anyhow, you are simply saying that if I define choice and give you an example, you will retract your initial claim and make a new one. So, you will move the goalpost. Very interesting...

 

[SkyWriting]

I only care if the goalpost remains the same. You wrote that animals have no choice, admit that you're wrong before starting another argument.

They have no choice in decision making other than instinct.
They are unable to overrule their animal reactions to their environment.
They are ruled by sub-brains with no intellect to conflict with what
their "lizard-brain" tells them to do. They have no choice.

Next we can get into
where they live,
if they get eaten,
if they get experimented on,
if they are in cages or free,
who takes care of them,
how they are treated,
if they will have offspring or not,
what environment they will live in,
how many offspring they will have,
how long they will live,
if they will take care of their children or not,
will they be good or bad,
what code of conduct will they follow,

and more choice issues.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh, time to start insulting now? My morals (not my religion) stop me from answering at the same level, so I will refrain from it.

Anyhow, you are simply saying that if I define choice and give you an example, you will retract your initial claim and make a new one. So, you will move the goalpost. Very interesting...

That would be you moving or defining the goalpost....if you choose.
My claim stands as originally written. No one has presented any
counter argument yet.

 

[SkyWriting]

Don't hold your breath! Goalposts will be moved much further before he admits such thing!

N0 one has offered any evidence to the contrary.
What would I be admitting?

 

[CabVet]

They have no choice in decision making other than instinct.
They are unable to overrule their animal reactions to their environment.
They are ruled by sub-brains with no intellect to conflict with what
their "lizard-brain" tells them to do. They have no choice.

Next we can get into
where they live,
if they get eaten,
if they get experimented on,
if they are in cages or free,
who takes care of them,
how they are treated,
if they will have offspring or not,
what environment they will live in,
how many offspring they will have,
how long they will live,
if they will take care of their children or not,
will they be good or bad,
what code of conduct will they follow,

and more choice issues.

Yeah, amazing what these stupid animals that make no choices can do:

[youtube]CXcRw6Piaj8[/youtube]

They can chose to wait, pull the rope, so many possibilities, but that is not "intelligent" choice.

 

[CabVet]

N0 one has offered any evidence to the contrary.
What would I be admitting?

Here is what you said first:

They have no "choice."

That covers most of the rest.

Then you said you were really referring to "intelligent choice". Next we will provide an example of an intelligent choice and you will probably say that is not what you meant. That is called moving the goalpost. What was asked from you is that you admit you were wrong on the first sentence before you ask for another condition. So, if I give you an example of choice, you should say: ok, I was wrong, they can choose, but what about intelligent choice?

 

[SkyWriting]

Yeah, amazing what these stupid animals that make no choices can do:

Nobody mentioned intelligence. Get back to choice, pavlov.

But the argument has been made that no animal has choices
so I'll go with that one for the moment.

Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will? - NYTimes.com

 

[SkyWriting]

Then you said you were really referring to "intelligent choice". Next we will provide an example of an intelligent choice and you will probably say that is not what you meant. That is called moving the goalpost. What was asked from you is that you admit you were wrong on the first sentence before you ask for another condition. So, if I give you an example of choice, you should say: ok, I was wrong, they can choose, but what about intelligent choice?

I was referring to free-will choice. If you feel that any clarification I make is changing my claim....
then you don't understand what is involved in a real discussion.

 

[Tomk80]

Why would anyone use the nonsense concept of free will?

 

[CabVet]

I was referring to free-will choice. If you feel that any clarification I make is changing my claim....
then you don't understand what is involved in a real discussion.

Oh, really? Choice, intelligent choice, free-will choice, every time we present you with any type of choice you change your definition of choice. So that is what you consider a "real discussion"? Good to know.

How about, before I give you an example and just to make this perfectly clear, you provide an example of "free-will choice"?