life on other planets

maybe the creator(s) meant for life on other planets to never meet each other, thus why we're so far away from the nearest star.

this came up in a discussion i had about God or whatever, and how it's possible there's 2, but no more. and how 1 being created the 2. but that could turn this into SERIOUS arguments...

dolphins will eventually realize "hey, what if i get out of the water and crawl around?" and the cycle repeats............ cmon! they figured out how to masturbate by jumping out of the water, and as they hit the water coming back down, well, you know the rest. (this is not meant to be offensive, dirty, or anything else. I'm being serious and mature about it. I brought this up to explain my point that dolphins are probably the most intelligent creatures on this planet and they have similar thought processes as us. I'm sorry if i can't actually post this, but if I get in trouble for what i said, that'd be sad.)

Edited by darkshade - July 14 2008 at 22:51

Fight Club wrote: Definitely. Think about it. When you look up at the night sky you see billions of stars. Go out to Nebraska and you see even more. More than half of those stars half a system of planets of their own. The Wilky Way Galaxy holds roughly 400 billion stars. Now imagine more than half of those with a system of planets. So that's about what? Maybe at least 5 planets each? So there's at least 1 trillion planets in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone. How illogical is it to assume not one out of these trillion planets (of just the Milky Way let me remind you) holds even a bit of life on it? Strictly speaking it is neither illogical or logical to make that assumption; in fact, assumptions are alogical whereas their relation to other assumptions is logical (but even then the situation is not so rigid, as such evaluations are dependent on the interpretative model employed).  Now is such an assumption plausible?  I suppose it is.  Yet I still don't find the total argument convincing. Remember life doesn't have to be weird creatures or humanoids, but can be trees, bacteria, worms, anything. It's just illogical to think only one planet in the entire universe (which we still are unaware of the size) has living organisms on it. Again: why is this assertion "illogical"?  Does it contradict any known evidence or well-established theory?  Not to my knowledge.  Incidentally, the "logical" (i.e., rational) position is that of disbelief:  believe P when there's evidence for P. Anyone who really believes that needs to pull their head out of his ass and wake up. Well, now you've convinced me.

Pnoom! wrote: As do, arguably, dolphins, among other examples.

Thanks for all the fish.

Definitely. Think about it. When you look up at the night sky you see billions of stars. Go out to Nebraska and you see even more. More than half of those stars half a system of planets of their own. The Wilky Way Galaxy holds roughly 400 billion stars. Now imagine more than half of those with a system of planets. So that's about what? Maybe at least 5 planets each? So there's at least 1 trillion planets in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone. How illogical is it to assume not one out of these trillion planets (of just the Milky Way let me remind you) holds even a bit of life on it? Remember life doesn't have to be weird creatures or humanoids, but can be trees, bacteria, worms, anything. It's just illogical to think only one planet in the entire universe (which we still are unaware of the size) has living organisms on it. Anyone who really believes that needs to pull their head out of his ass and wake up.

Philéas wrote: Most likely. But I don't believe in UFO sightings and that kind of stuff. Space is big and the chances of them having found us is as slim as we having found them (which we haven't). Also, the whole thing about a possible intelligent life form on another planet being extremely far ahead of us technologically is rather silly to me, for all we know they could be stuck in the stone age still, or at our level.

well, I do believe in UFO sightings. but I believe they are exactly that - Unidentified Flying Objects

WinterLight wrote: I hate to appear pedantic

I find that claim highly dubious. 

Pnoom! wrote: BaldJean wrote: Pnoom! wrote: BaldJean wrote: a robot does not have a metabolism. and viruses are generally not seen as life forms by biologists, because they also have no metabolism. anyway, they are definitely not primitive, at least not in the sense that they are some very early kind of proto-life. this can't be because to reproduce viruses need other organisms with a metabolism re robots... I said conceivably.  It seems to me it could be done with further technological advances. re viruses... primitive was a bad word, simple would be a better one (but still not ideal) Meh, I'm in over my head here.  I'm out. if a robot had a metabolism and was able to reproduce itself we had no choice but to call it alive, in my opinion. it doesn't really matter who made the first of them. it is not necessary for the robot to be sentient Would you consider it reproduction if a robot (or multiple robots) was capable of doing everything from finding the materials to build a new copy of itself, processing those materials, and building a new copy of itself?

I certainly would; the means by which reproduction takes place are not of importance for the definition. you'd be amazed how many different ways for reproduction there are in life, even if it all boils down to "sperm meets egg" in the end.

the "cell" part of the definition is true for life on earth; it is not necessary for life per se. or would you not call something you find on another planet that fits all requirements except for the cell part "alive"?


Edited by BaldJean - July 15 2008 at 10:23

Is there life? Probably. Is there intelligent life? No.

Dean wrote: WinterLight wrote: If "it can never be proven wrong" then it is not falsifiable, whence it does fall under the purview of science.  Of course, this doesn't preclude it existentially.  Also the assertion that "space is infinite" remains controversial. If an idea is not falsifiable it does not follow that it has no place in science. No, this is entirely false.  Falsifiability is the hallmark of a scientific claim. Anyway, "can never be proven wrong" does not necessarily mean "not falsifiable". That is precisely what "not falsifiable" means.  See the Wikipedia entry, for example.   WinterLight wrote: Dean wrote: Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life. Extremely difficult problem, I think you'll agree. Difficult - yes, Extremely - meh, not convinced... the 'problem' can be reduced to simpler forms than give incremental answers - speculation of possible life-supporting planets are essentially simplified versions of the Earth model with varying parameters. Anyway, if it were easy it wouldn't be a problem All of this assumes, of course, that reductionist methods will be fruitful.  Although it may be the case, it doesn't appear to induce solvency in biological systems.