Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life? (1 Viewer)

[Galaxiom]

Posted by Pauldohert but apparently deleted. I pasted this from the email alert.

Why are atheists on these boards so dissmissive of religion - when someone like Einstein clearly was not?
http://einsteinandreligion.com/

Because science is not a personality cult.

Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics yet it is the most successful theory of all time (right up there with Darwin's Evolution). As much respect as he gets for Relativity it does not transfer to other fields.

Religion is based on "prophets", anointed leaders and unquestioned dogma. The prophets and anointed leaders can be shows to be bigots, (and often pedophiles).

In science nothing and nobody is beyond critique. If it doens't fit the observation the reputation of those who back it means nothing.

As cool as some of the ideas attributed to Jesus may be he is reported as backing the hideous Old Testament. Those who follow "the ways of the Lord" are zombies, constantly vulnerable to being conducted by the high preists of doctrine to engage in the worst of human degeneration. Personality cults are objectively flawed.

IT shows massive arrogance and ignorance to me.
I can see the answer coming back - that organised religion, in a hard coded format wasn't anywhere near Einsteins thing either. We know that, and to be honest I reckon most religious folk, dont operate on that level either. Its just that's easy introducation for the 6 years olds, or a framework to start from/
So why do atheists here insist on debating on the six year old religiuos story telling religion stuff, but also then dismiss all other religiuos beleif, as the fumblings of the uneducated?

Religion is enhanced by the age of the story. The older it is and the more often it is repeated the more reliable it is considered. Observations of reality do not even rate and any conflict is ignored.

In contrast a scientific theory that conlicts with observation must be immediately abandonned or reconstructed. This reconstruction is not the weakness as accused by the religious but science's central strength.

Only an idiot would expect the 3000 year old story to be more reliable.

 

[Pauldohert]

Posted by Pauldohert but apparently deleted. I pasted this from the email alert.



Because science is not a personality cult.

Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics yet it is the most successful theory of all time (right up there with Darwin's Evolution). As much respect as he gets for Relativity it does not transfer to other fields.

Religion is based on "prophets", anointed leaders and unquestioned dogma. The prophets and anointed leaders can be shows to be bigots, (and often pedophiles).

In science nothing and nobody is beyond critique. If it doens't fit the observation the reputation of those who back it means nothing.

As cool as some of the ideas attributed to Jesus may be he is reported as backing the hideous Old Testament. Those who follow "the ways of the Lord" are zombies, constantly vulnerable to being conducted by the high preists of doctrine to engage in the worst of human degeneration. Personality cults are objectively flawed.



Religion is enhanced by the age of the story. The older it is and the more often it is repeated the more reliable it is considered. Observations of reality do not even rate and any conflict is ignored.

In contrast a scientific theory that conlicts with observation must be immediately abandonned or reconstructed. This reconstruction is not the weakness as accused by the religious but science's central strength.

Only an idiot would expect the 3000 year old story to be more reliable.

I started a new thread - and with respect - you didn't begin to answer my question, just roled on with the usual incredibly simplified and polemic organised religion stuff again.

 

[Galaxiom]

I started a new thread - and with respect - you didn't begin to answer my question, just roled on with the usual incredibly simplified and polemic organised religion stuff again.

Rubbish. You asked why atheists dismiss religion when someone like Einstein was a believer.

Originally Posted by GalaxiomAtHome
Because science is not a personality cult.

 

[Pauldohert]

Rubbish. You asked why atheists dismiss religion when someone like Einstein was a believer.

Originally Posted by GalaxiomAtHome
Because science is not a personality cult.

A simple reading of what I posted and the links and its very obvious thats not what I asked or said.

As usual you have simplified it, so you can give a simplistic answer. Why you feel the need to deal with it so simplistically is the question, when someone like Einstein is nowhere near as simplistic or dismissive?

You are repeating the observed behaviour though, which prompted the question in the first place.

You seemed to have just tried a little dismissing of Einstein as an educational lightweight also?

 

[Mike375]

Well said Lightwave.

Those of us who actually understand the nature and significance of the speed of light realise it isn't just a speed like a bullet or a space ship. It can't even be considered in terms of a barrier because it is a fundamental characteristic of SpaceTime. Anyone who thinks of it as a barrier doesn't even have a clue.

But isn't it a barrier in the sense that the speed of light can't be reached because the body would become infinitetely heavy and thus require an infinite force.

In the past if you presented to a scientist the idea that the mass would be less after a reaction, would he have said that is impossible.

 

[Adam Caramon]

The 1:1 after the event is like.....God works in mysterious ways....

No, its not. Reread what he wrote. Then think about it. Then reread it again.

Odds are determined by taking the possibility in question dividied by all possibilities. The odds for rolling a 6 on a 6-sided die are 1 in 6, for example.

Now, if you ask a question like "What are odds of rolling a 6 on a 6-sided die on a planet where dice have never existed", then odds are 0. The planet where dice do not exist would not be included in the calculation.

 

[Mike375]

In contrast a scientific theory that conlicts with observation must be immediately abandonned or reconstructed. This reconstruction is not the weakness as accused by the religious but science's central strength.

Only an idiot would expect the 3000 year old story to be more reliable.

It is a weakness within the debate.

History shows that "definite" statements of the day have to be changed at a later date.

Are you prepared to state now.....that the speed of light will never be exceeded. And just to be clear, if an object is 10 light years from earth will ever a point come where that distance can be covered in less than 10 years.

 

[Mike375]

No, its not. Reread what he wrote. Then think about it. Then reread it again.

Odds are determined by taking the possibility in question dividied by all possibilities. The odds for rolling a 6 on a 6-sided die are 1 in 6, for example.

Now, if you ask a question like "What are odds of rolling a 6 on a 6-sided die on a planet where dice have never existed", then odds are 0. The planet where dice do not exist would not be included in the calculation.

Let's try again.

We will assume methods of observation improve so it can be clearly established what any planets were like that were found orbiting a star. It would not be long before betting agencies offered bets on finding an earth like planet and odds would be given and you can bet the odds would be enormous.

 

[Adam Caramon]

It is a weakness within the debate.

Could you explain why? I would think the fact that science is willing to change as the facts change would be a strength. Its what makes it logical, and easy for anyone to follow.

Science basically says: "These are things we know. We know them because we can prove them."

Religion says: "These are the things we know. We know them because this book written 1800+ years ago says so."

Something out there says: "Uh, there's something out there."

Edit:

I guess it comes down to what each of accept as evidence.

For me, one part of the evidence (or at least a strong suggestion) is just the fact that the earth is the right distance from the sun, the right size etc. and etc., you have heard all of them before.

The chances of a solar system forming in this way must be incredible odds, I magine a 1 followed by lots and lots of noughts.

So, what you accept as evidence is the fact that we're here in the first place. That's what I am referring to above.


The likelihood of there being another planet capable of sustaining life is high IMO. But the fact that we happen to be on one does not mean we drew the "planet capable of sustaining life" lottery ticket, which is what you seem to be implying.

 

[Mike375]

Here is a question for the Christians reading this: Do you believe you are going to heaven when you die?

I am Christian by birth/school but not a practicing one.

I am inclined to think once we die that is the end of the deal. I am fairly conviced that there is some force or something/being/beings above us but they don't have the horsepower to pull off the life after death for us, at least on a bulk deal Its like we are dealing with the branch manager only.

At the same time I don't think we are the same as the other animals on earth.

 

[Mike375]

Could you explain why? I would think the fact that science is willing to change as the facts change would be a strength. Its what makes it logical, and easy for anyone to follow.

Its a weakness in the debate because the science changes. In other words you might state you are an atheist based on certain science but yo basis could be changed if the science changes.

[/quote]
So, what you accept as evidence is the fact that we're here in the first place. That's what I am referring to above.

The likelihood of there being another planet capable of sustaining life is high IMO. But the fact that we happen to be on one does not mean we drew the "planet capable of sustaining life" lottery ticket, which is what you seem to be implying.[/quote]

No, I am saying the odds of another earth like planet being "out there" are low in the extreme.

To come at it another way do you agree we are here for one of two reasons

1) Intervention by some supernatural/being/beings or intelligent design if you like.

2) By chance

 

[Adam Caramon]

Its a weakness in the debate because the science changes. In other words you might state you are an atheist based on certain science but yo basis could be changed if the science changes.

That's what makes it a strength. Its scary that you think it a weakness to admit you're wrong when you're proven wrong.

No, I am saying the odds of another earth like planet being "out there" are low in the extreme.

I won't use the word "odds" because I don't think you still understand the meaning. The likelihood of there being another planet somewhere in outer space capable of sustaining life is high to me.

To come at it another way do you agree we are here for one of two reasons

1) Intervention by some supernatural/being/beings or intelligent design if you like.

2) By chance

I'd say 2, by chance.

 

[Mike375]

That's what makes it a strength. Its scary that you think it a weakness to admit you're wrong when you're proven wrong.

Not at all. It's a weakness for the debate on that side. You are standing on shifting sand. Admitting some science is wrong and a new plan is released is of course a strength of science but because the science is not static then basing the debate on some science is standing on shifting sand.

I won't use the word "odds" because I don't think you still understand the meaning. The likelihood of there being another planet somewhere in outer space capable of sustaining life is high to me.




I'd say 2, by chance.

"Odds" are only a way of putting a number on chance.

If I said to you "what are the chances that life exists on Mars" surely you might say either

1) No chance or
2) Extremely low or
3) etc and up the scale

Would you agree that NASA won't spend money looking for any signs of life on Mercury or Jupiter. We know they won't spend the money because the odds of some form of life being there are about as close to zero as you get. However they will try with Mars because the "odds" are seen as at least reasonable.

Let's say a new star/planet system is formed tomorrow. Then how high or low are the chances that there will be a planet like earth formed in the process.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Not at all. It's a weakness for the debate on that side. You are standing on shifting sand. Admitting some science is wrong and a new plan is released is of course a strength of science but because the science is not static then basing the debate on some science is standing on shifting sand.

What would you consider static, then? There have been a ton of religions, so is religion static? Is the bible static? There's an Old and New Testament, so I'd guess not. Is "there's something out there" static? I suppose it could be since it is incredibly vague and there are no specifics to it.

But is that then a strength? That would be like attributing strength to a fortune teller who gives overly-generic "predicitions" that could be correct when interpreted under a certain light.

Science never claims to have all the answers, so I wouldn't think it would be a weakness in a debate.

"Odds" are only a way of putting a number on chance.

If I said to you "what are the chances that life exists on Mars" surely you might say either

1) No chance or
2) Extremely low or
3) etc and up the scale

I might say one of those. Could you tell me the odds, then? (I noticed you changed to the word "chances" now).

Would you agree that NASA won't spend money looking for any signs of life on Mercury or Jupiter. We know they won't spend the money because the odds of some form of life being there are about as close to zero as you get. However they will try with Mars because the "odds" are seen as at least reasonable.

You're using the word "odds" in a slang sort of way. Odds are based on probability. Generally, you have to know all the information about a situtation before you can calculate the odds.

Example, you can calculate the odds of hitting the lottery (1 in 100,000,000). Because you can be that precise, the word "odds" carries more meaning to it then say, the word chance or likelihood.

 

[Mike375]

What would you consider static, then? There have been a ton of religions, so is religion static? Is the bible static? There's an Old and New Testament, so I'd guess not. Is "there's something out there" static? I suppose it could be since it is incredibly vague and there are no specifics to it.

There are a couple of points you are forgetting.

Firstly, the "religions" are just man made manifestations of a belief in "something must be out there". You could think of the religions being like what we would make in Access. Even if you and I were given the same instructions as to what was required we would go about making the program differently but Access would be the foundation.

The debate we are having on this thread is not whether Jesus pulled off a few miracles or whether Christianity is correct or Islam or the Catholic church etc. Pauldohert has basically outlined that in the thread he started.

Secondly, the argument from the atheist side is science based and with the associated claim it is fact based. Therein lies the problem because the science is changing. I know it is very hard for an atheist to be hypothetical but just for this exercies.....let's assume the dating methods used turn out to be wrong, very wrong. Then immediately any atheist using dating to support and argument has had the floor pulled from under him

I might say one of those. Could you tell me the odds, then? (I noticed you changed to the word "chances" now).

I had to since you seem to have trouble with "odds"

You're using the word "odds" in a slang sort of way. Odds are based on probability. Generally, you have to know all the information about a situtation before you can calculate the odds.

Example, you can calculate the odds of hitting the lottery (1 in 100,000,000). Because you can be that precise, the word "odds" carries more meaning to it then say, the word chance or likelihood.

But you don't need exact numbers to know if the "odds/chances" are very low or very high etc.

Take two examples and using the 100 metre sprint for men. If you are attempting to pick the winner from an Olympic final then as you say yo would need as much data as possible...current form, weather and whatever else.

But let's say I have been allowed to enter the race. All you need to know is I am 62 and thus the odds/chances of me winning are virtually zero. On the other hand the odds/chances of me running last are virtually 100%. About the only thing that would cause an upset is for some reason none of the rest of the field could finish the race or alternatively they were all disqualied.

Let me go just a bit further.

Would you agree if either none of the rest of the field finished the race or they were all disqualified then something strange has happened. Why strange. Because the odds/chances of the rest of the field not finishing or all being disqualifed is virtually 0%. In fact the odds/chances are so low that initially it would be discounted and officials would look for something more than odds/chance. Perhaps there was betting on the race and odds on me were 10,000 to 1 and so possible monetary reasons are why none of the others finished the race or were all disqualified.

And so it is with the formation of the earth and its life. The odds/chances of a star/planet system forming whereby an "earth" is formed is remote in the extreme, just like none of the other runners finishing the race or all being disqualified. The people like me with the "something must there" view are like the racing officials that don't simply accept that chance meant all the other runners did not finish or were disqualified. On the other hand, the view from your side is...it was simply chance the other runners did not finish or were all disqualified and so let's just move on.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Firstly, the "religions" are just man made manifestations of a belief in "something must be out there". You could think of the religions being like what we would make in Access. Even if you and I were given the same instructions as to what was required we would go about making the program differently but Access would be the foundation.

I'm not sure how that ties in with something being static or not? In your analogy, is Access the static?

Secondly, the argument from the atheist side is science based and with the associated claim it is fact based.

Its not a claim that it is fact-based. Science is fact-based. I think what you're getting caught up on is that facts can change.

Therein lies the problem because the science is changing. I know it is very hard for an atheist to be hypothetical but just for this exercies.....let's assume the dating methods used turn out to be wrong, very wrong. Then immediately any atheist using dating to support and argument has had the floor pulled from under him

I have no problem working with hypothetical situations. How has the floor been pulled out from under them? In that they had been wrong? If so, it seems like the ideal situation is absolute certainty? You'll only find such claims in religion.

But you don't need exact numbers to know if the "odds/chances" are very low or very high etc.

Again, you're conflating chances to mean the same thing as odds. I'm probably not explaining myself very well.

If you're stricken with cancer, and you ask the doctor what your chance of survival is, and he says "Poor", that's a world of difference from him telling you that your ODDS of survival are 1 in 500.

The first statement is not a scientific statement. It is not fact-based. It is the doctor's guess based on his experience. If he tells you your ODDS, then that is based on science. Facts. Likely, he has seen thousands of patients with your same situation and only 1 in 500 survive.

I'm bypassing the rest of your post (as in, I read it, but am not responding) because I think the part that has been confusing here as been over the terminology. When you're saying ODDs I think you mean something different than the textbook definition.

 

[Lightwave]

And so it is with the formation of the earth and its life. The odds/chances of a star/planet system forming whereby an "earth" is formed is remote in the extreme, just like none of the other runners finishing the race or all being disqualified. The people like me with the "something must there" view are like the racing officials that don't simply accept that chance meant all the other runners did not finish or were disqualified. On the other hand, the view from your side is...it was simply chance the other runners did not finish or were all disqualified and so let's just move on.

Great example Mike

What the racing officials should do is get in touch with a statistician who would promptly say that this is an example of a binomial distribution.

A binomial distribution is a statistical distribution giving the probability of obtaining a certain number of successes in a certain number of independent trials with the same probablilty of success in each case.

Given enough 62 year olds entering enough races eventually this situation will occur. In fact given enough 62 year olds in enough races those 62 year olds will come in every given position multiple times.

Given that we have had lots and lots of sports events you might have expected this kind of thing to happened before ...

I give you Winter Olympics 2002 Steve Bradbury

Australia's first ever Winter Olympic gold, also the first such medal won by a competitor from any Southern Hemisphere country, was won by Steven Bradbury in the 1000m short track speed skating. Well off the pace of the medal favourites, Bradbury was positioned at the rear in the semifinal, only to see his competitors crash into each other, allowing him through to the final. Again well off the pace in the final all four other competitors crashed out at the final corner, leaving a shocked Bradbury to take the gold medal.

Now is this because there an outside influence or is it because there's a lot more randomness to speed skating than first thought. The important thing is that the chance of it happening is not nil and therefore given enough races it will happen.

In your standard races the probabilities are small of this happening and similarly at the moment we don't know what the probablity of finding even basic life. We exepect that it is not null but we don't know this NASAs announcement increases the size of that basic probabilty and therefore improves the chances of intelligent life occurring spontaneously.

Especially given some of the numbers we think we know. We think we know for instance that the number of stars and the size of the universe approaches or could be infinite. Infinity multiplied by any number or any fraction of a number is infinity.

Therefore the chance of finding someone like us must be 100% and we are not unique.

The Maths works???

 

[Mike375]

Adam,

"Odds" being used as it used in general conversation. In fact I just sent an email to someone that I doing some Access work for and I said the odds of it running by tomorrow are very good.

I will rewrite the last part for you of my last post for you.

But you don't need exact numbers to know if the chances are very low or very high etc.

Take two examples and using the 100 metre sprint for men. If you are attempting to pick the winner from an Olympic final then as you say you would need as much data as possible...current form, weather and whatever else.

But let's say I have been allowed to enter the race. All you need to know is I am 62 and thus the chances of me winning are virtually zero. On the other hand the chances of me running last are virtually 100%. About the only thing that would cause an upset is for some reason none of the rest of the field could finish the race or alternatively they were all disqualied.

Let me go just a bit further.

Would you agree if either none of the rest of the field finished the race or they were all disqualified then something strange has happened. Why strange. Because the odds/chances of the rest of the field not finishing or all being disqualifed is virtually 0%. In fact the chances are so low that initially it would be discounted and officials would look for something more than chance. Perhaps there was betting on the race and odds on me were 10,000 to 1 and so possible monetary reasons are why none of the others finished the race or were all disqualified.

And so it is with the formation of the earth and its life. The chances of a star/planet system forming whereby an "earth" is formed is remote in the extreme, just like none of the other runners finishing the race or all being disqualified. The people like me with the "something must there" view are like the racing officials that don't simply accept that chance meant all the other runners did not finish or were disqualified. On the other hand, the view from your side is...it was simply chance the other runners did not finish or were all disqualified and so let's just move on.

 

[Mike375]

Great example Mike


Given enough 62 year olds entering enough races eventually this situation will occur. In fact given enough 62 year olds in enough races those 62 year olds will come in every given position multiple times.

I did not say a 62 old would be in every race

[qote]
What we do know is that the number of stars and the size of the universe is to our knowledge infinite.

[/quote]

That is know for a fact?

 

[Lightwave]

I did not say a 62 old would be in every race

[qote]
What we do know is that the number of stars and the size of the universe is to our knowledge infinite.

That is know for a fact?[/QUOTE]

Good point mike more like it

It is not a known fact but there are stars in every direction so many we can't count. In fact not just stars there are so many Galaxies we can't count them.

And we're pretty good at counting.