Space Talk (Other life, world endings - not 2012 and others)

I think he's saying the creator created evolution...

How did you not get that?

Barton wrote:Huh? Excuse me if i'm being ignorant but isn't it one or the other... like you can't believe in both creationism and evolution

I definitely understand the speculation, our existance is still very much unkown and from what we understand based on scientific evidence, we are basically some sort of massive fluke. Do you think god created evolution?

There are plenty of people who believe in both evolution and creationism. In fact, it's probably the most wide held viewpoint. They aren't competiting theories. Evolution explains the process of creation. Creationism expains who did it.

Anyways, I don't want this to turn into a relgious thread or debate.

MickStupp wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:Like NZG said, the probability of us living on Earth today is extremely low. Even evolution is crazy when you think about it. That's why I believe there is a Creator.

If evolution is the reason you believe in a creator then it would seem that you don't understand evolution.

Anyway, Space: Water ice confirmed on Mercury.

Evolution does not explain the origin of matter. It explains how species adapt and improve over time and eventually evolve into new species. But where did all the material that makes living creatures come from? About 14 billion years ago, there was a massive explosion at the center of the universe. From that explosion came protons and neutrons. A few hundred million years later, some of those protons and neutrons combined to create hydrogen atoms. A few hundred million years after that came helium. Eventually, heavier elements like oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and iron came along. Eventually, those elements started combining to make particles of water and other things like acids. But where did the explosion come from in the first place? And do we know for a fact that everything that happened after that wasn't guided by a force that we are not yet capable of recognizing or understanding? That question remains unanswered and as long as it remains unanswered, it's perfectly legitimate to believe in evolution and the existence of a creator at the same time.

menalawyerguy wrote:

MickStupp wrote:
If evolution is the reason you believe in a creator then it would seem that you don't understand evolution.

Anyway, Space: Water ice confirmed on Mercury.

Evolution does not explain the origin of matter. It explains how species adapt and improve over time and eventually evolve into new species. But where did all the material that makes living creatures come from? About 14 billion years ago, there was a massive explosion at the center of the universe. From that explosion came protons and neutrons. A few hundred million years later, some of those protons and neutrons combined to create hydrogen atoms. A few hundred million years after that came helium. Eventually, heavier elements like oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and iron came along. Eventually, those elements started combining to make particles of water and other things like acids. But where did the explosion come from in the first place? And do we know for a fact that everything that happened after that wasn't guided by a force that we are not yet capable of recognizing or understanding? That question remains unanswered and as long as it remains unanswered, it's perfectly legitimate to believe in evolution and the existence of a creator at the same time.

Yes! Fuckin A.

+1

Stuff about the Mercury findings.


- stable polar water ice deposits
- deposited over a long term by comets and asteroids
- redistributing into crater environments which range from 550 to 50 kelvin
- in close proximity to rich organic chemicals
- all the building blocks of life
- images are expected of "unusual phenomena" in the vicinity of these craters

New Supermassive Black hole found.

The distance from the Earth to the Sun is 1 AU.



One of the largest known stars, VY Canis Majoris, has a radius which is 6.6 AU.



This radius of this black hole is nearly 350 AU.

AU?

Astronomical unit. One AU is about 150 million kilometres.

menalawyerguy wrote:

MickStupp wrote:
If evolution is the reason you believe in a creator then it would seem that you don't understand evolution.

Anyway, Space: Water ice confirmed on Mercury.

Evolution does not explain the origin of matter. It explains how species adapt and improve over time and eventually evolve into new species. But where did all the material that makes living creatures come from? About 14 billion years ago, there was a massive explosion at the center of the universe. From that explosion came protons and neutrons. A few hundred million years later, some of those protons and neutrons combined to create hydrogen atoms. A few hundred million years after that came helium. Eventually, heavier elements like oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and iron came along. Eventually, those elements started combining to make particles of water and other things like acids. But where did the explosion come from in the first place? And do we know for a fact that everything that happened after that wasn't guided by a force that we are not yet capable of recognizing or understanding? That question remains unanswered and as long as it remains unanswered, it's perfectly legitimate to believe in evolution and the existence of a creator at the same time.

But basically what you're doing there is filling in the gaps of knowledge not discovered with "GOD", it looks something like this:

oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and iron elements <---- helium <---- hydrogen atoms <---- protons and neutrons <---- big bang <----- GOD? (We don't know)

Personally i'm a skeptic, neither a believer or an athiest. To think "I'm gonna believe in a creator because there isn't any evidence of what happened before the big bang" has never seriously crossed my mind, i refuse to believe in such a theory without any significant evidence.

Anyway, as Ahly said i don't want this to go off track and turn into a religion thread.

That's your prerogative. The "we don't know" part can be pretty much anything that you want because, well, we don't know. Anybody who says he has scientific proof of the existence of a god is a fool. But anybody who thinks they have proof that a god of some sort does not exist is equally foolish. In a scientific sense, the question is beyond us. All we know for sure is that there was an explosion 14 billion years ago and from that explosion came everything that makes us, our world and our sun. Given the absurdly incomprehensible size of the known universe (not even considering the unknown universe), it is hard to imagine that this is the only place that has the perfect storm of conditions required to create life. We didn't even get the ball rolling on life on Earth until about 3.5 billion years ago, 10.5 billion years after the big boom. So it took 3.5 billion to create us. If life got kickstarted on other planets as soon as stars and planets started forming, and nothing has happened there to materially disturb it since then, then there is a chance there are species out there that are the product of 8 or 9 billion years of evolution. They would make us look like mumbling, stuttering dolts.

Well my prerogative is that i find the unknown and will to discover who we really are far more interesting. To answer the big questions in life like 'why are we here', 'what's the meanning of life' etc conclusively.

Humanity may never get there, but space exploration and scientific research is at least a start, and it appears to be heading in the direction of my prerogative more than anything else.

Barton wrote:Well my prerogative is that i find the unknown and will to discover who we really are far more interesting. To answer the big questions in life like 'why are we here', 'what's the meanning of life' etc conclusively.

So do I. I'm enthralled by the unknowns that space presents.

Firstly, I knew what Ahly meant. Secondly, I wasn't saying that you can't believe in both god and evolution and I never said it explained matter's existence - it's just that evolution is often regarded as an alternative to creation, as in it does not need a creator, so I don't see the need to attribute it to one.

Bye_Ya wrote:Stuff about the Mercury findings.


- stable polar water ice deposits
- deposited over a long term by comets and asteroids
- redistributing into crater environments which range from 550 to 50 kelvin
- in close proximity to rich organic chemicals
- all the building blocks of life
- images are expected of "unusual phenomena" in the vicinity of these craters

It's similar to those found on the moon, where polar craters that don't see any sunlight drop to really low temperatures. The hunt for water's definitely one of the most interesting things currently going on.

I think a lot of things had to go just right for us to be where we are today.

I also definitely believe there's other life out there.

MickStupp wrote:Firstly, I knew what Ahly meant. Secondly, I wasn't saying that you can't believe in both god and evolution and I never said it explained matter's existence - it's just that evolution is often regarded as an alternative to creation, as in it does not need a creator, so I don't see the need to attribute it to one.

It's an alternative to the Genesis creation story but it is not necessarily an alternative to some intelligent design theories.

menalawyerguy wrote:

MickStupp wrote:Firstly, I knew what Ahly meant. Secondly, I wasn't saying that you can't believe in both god and evolution and I never said it explained matter's existence - it's just that evolution is often regarded as an alternative to creation, as in it does not need a creator, so I don't see the need to attribute it to one.

It's an alternative to the Genesis creation story but it is not necessarily an alternative to some intelligent design theories.

Yes I know, but my main point was that I don't say "Look how unlikely all this is - there must be a creator." I don't see our existence as a fluke but just as something that occurred organically, so believing in god because of evolution seems bizarre to me.
I also would have thought that finding life elsewhere in the Universe would make it even more unlikely that any of Earth's religions are true.

On another note, I'd love to see Betelgeuse go supernova, would be incredible to see.

If we are still around when Betelgeuse goes supernova, the world is going to be a weird place for a couple of weeks.

Bye_Ya wrote:Stuff about the Mercury findings.


- stable polar water ice deposits
- deposited over a long term by comets and asteroids
- redistributing into crater environments which range from 550 to 50 kelvin
- in close proximity to rich organic chemicals
- all the building blocks of life
- images are expected of "unusual phenomena" in the vicinity of these craters

ahlycotc wrote:If we are still around when Betelgeuse goes supernova, the world is going to be a weird place for a couple of weeks.

Why, what'll happen?

We will have a second sun in the sky. For two weeks, there will be no darkness.

That would be shit yet cool

It would be awesome to see in our lifetime. Though for that to happen it will have had to have exploded about 550 or 600 years ago already. Crazy to think that about stars. What you see in the stars is light beams hundreds or more years old.

Childish Logic wrote:Stephen hawking seems to think that my view is not unlikely.

" There is support for the view that intelligence, was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution. It took a very long time, two and a half billion years, to go from single cells to multi-cell beings, which are a necessary precursor to intelligence. This is a good fraction of the total time available, before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis, that the probability for life to develop intelligence, is low. In this case, we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy, but we are unlikely to find intelligent life"

You overestimate the chances of us being here, us being here, i am communicating with you from anywhere in the world. . 0.001% is over estimating it, Everything had to be perfect for us to reach this state. So many variables that just somehow aligned, Billions of year of evolution and here we are, Like i said before

Intelligent life is possible but very unlikely.

The key phrase in Hawking's is "there is support for the view...." He's not saying that's what he personally believes. Here is the broader context of what Hawking was talking about there:



What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant.

What is the explanation of why we have not been visited? One possibility is that the argument, about the appearance of life on Earth, is wrong. Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened. Another possibility is that there was a reasonable probability of forming self reproducing systems, like cells, but that most of these forms of life did not evolve intelligence. We are used to thinking of intelligent life, as an inevitable consequence of evolution. But the Anthropic Principle should warn us to be wary of such arguments. It is more likely that evolution is a random process, with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes. It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value. Bacteria, and other single cell organisms, will live on, if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. There is support for the view that intelligence, was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution. It took a very long time, two and a half billion years, to go from single cells to multi-cell beings, which are a necessary precursor to intelligence. This is a good fraction of the total time available, before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis, that the probability for life to develop intelligence, is low. In this case, we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy, but we are unlikely to find intelligent life. Another way, in which life could fail to develop to an intelligent stage, would be if an asteroid or comet were to collide with the planet. We have just observed the collision of a comet, Schumacher-Levi, with Jupiter. It produced a series of enormous fireballs. It is thought the collision of a rather smaller body with the Earth, about 70 million years ago, was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. A few small early mammals survived, but anything as large as a human, would have almost certainly been wiped out. It is difficult to say how often such collisions occur, but a reasonable guess might be every twenty million years, on average. If this figure is correct, it would mean that intelligent life on Earth has developed only because of the lucky chance that there have been no major collisions in the last 70 million years. Other planets in the galaxy, on which life has developed, may not have had a long enough collision free period to evolve intelligent beings.

A third possibility is that there is a reasonable probability for life to form, and to evolve to intelligent beings, in the external transmission phase. But at that point, the system becomes unstable, and the intelligent life destroys itself. This would be a very pessimistic conclusion. I very much hope it isn't true. I prefer a fourth possibility: there are other forms of intelligent life out there, but that we have been overlooked. There used to be a project called SETI, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. It involved scanning the radio frequencies, to see if we could pick up signals from alien civilisations. I thought this project was worth supporting, though it was cancelled due to a lack of funds. But we should have been wary of answering back, until we have develop a bit further. Meeting a more advanced civilisation, at our present stage, might be a bit like the original inhabitants of America meeting Columbus. I don't think they were better off for it.

menalawyerguy wrote:

Childish Logic wrote:Stephen hawking seems to think that my view is not unlikely.

" There is support for the view that intelligence, was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution. It took a very long time, two and a half billion years, to go from single cells to multi-cell beings, which are a necessary precursor to intelligence. This is a good fraction of the total time available, before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis, that the probability for life to develop intelligence, is low. In this case, we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy, but we are unlikely to find intelligent life"

You overestimate the chances of us being here, us being here, i am communicating with you from anywhere in the world. . 0.001% is over estimating it, Everything had to be perfect for us to reach this state. So many variables that just somehow aligned, Billions of year of evolution and here we are, Like i said before

Intelligent life is possible but very unlikely.

The key phrase in Hawking's is "there is support for the view...." He's not saying that's what he personally believes. Here is the broader context of what Hawking was talking about there:



What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as we explore the galaxy. If the argument about the time scale for the appearance of life on Earth is correct, there ought to be many other stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy not crawling with self designing mechanical or biological life forms? Why hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonised. I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant.

What is the explanation of why we have not been visited? One possibility is that the argument, about the appearance of life on Earth, is wrong. Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened. Another possibility is that there was a reasonable probability of forming self reproducing systems, like cells, but that most of these forms of life did not evolve intelligence. We are used to thinking of intelligent life, as an inevitable consequence of evolution. But the Anthropic Principle should warn us to be wary of such arguments. It is more likely that evolution is a random process, with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes. It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value. Bacteria, and other single cell organisms, will live on, if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. There is support for the view that intelligence, was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution. It took a very long time, two and a half billion years, to go from single cells to multi-cell beings, which are a necessary precursor to intelligence. This is a good fraction of the total time available, before the Sun blows up. So it would be consistent with the hypothesis, that the probability for life to develop intelligence, is low. In this case, we might expect to find many other life forms in the galaxy, but we are unlikely to find intelligent life. Another way, in which life could fail to develop to an intelligent stage, would be if an asteroid or comet were to collide with the planet. We have just observed the collision of a comet, Schumacher-Levi, with Jupiter. It produced a series of enormous fireballs. It is thought the collision of a rather smaller body with the Earth, about 70 million years ago, was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. A few small early mammals survived, but anything as large as a human, would have almost certainly been wiped out. It is difficult to say how often such collisions occur, but a reasonable guess might be every twenty million years, on average. If this figure is correct, it would mean that intelligent life on Earth has developed only because of the lucky chance that there have been no major collisions in the last 70 million years. Other planets in the galaxy, on which life has developed, may not have had a long enough collision free period to evolve intelligent beings.

A third possibility is that there is a reasonable probability for life to form, and to evolve to intelligent beings, in the external transmission phase. But at that point, the system becomes unstable, and the intelligent life destroys itself. This would be a very pessimistic conclusion. I very much hope it isn't true. I prefer a fourth possibility: there are other forms of intelligent life out there, but that we have been overlooked. There used to be a project called SETI, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. It involved scanning the radio frequencies, to see if we could pick up signals from alien civilisations. I thought this project was worth supporting, though it was cancelled due to a lack of funds. But we should have been wary of answering back, until we have develop a bit further. Meeting a more advanced civilisation, at our present stage, might be a bit like the original inhabitants of America meeting Columbus. I don't think they were better off for it.

I mentioned that in my post you quoted but you cut it out for some reason. (that hawking says we could of been over looked)

I only posted that quote because i was showing that my view is possible and it shouldn't be brushed aside.

I just like to add, reading his views, It seems like he hopes it's the fourth option as it would most likely be the best for us as a human race.

I'm not brushing your view aside. Odds are what they are. Nobody knows for sure what's going to happen before it happens.

menalawyerguy wrote:I'm not brushing your view aside. Odds are what they are. Nobody knows for sure what's going to happen before it happens.

My mistake then. I just got that idea from your posts before.

Nah, no worries. That's what's so fun about this topic. We are all free to speculate until proof is obtained. Like Hawking, I like to think that there is advanced life out there somewhere and that they're either nobel and peaceful or they'll just leave us alone.