Answers to the Fermi paradox

[Perfection]

Oh Goddamnit, take the creationist trash to my thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=251754

I don't want every thread on science to just become this one stupid subject.

 

[bhsup]

What is scientific about this thread? There is no basis for any educated guesses about how many planets that can support life, how many may have life, etc. So really this whole thread is just about gut feelings. Creationism has as much right to be here as science.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Earth is millions of years old. That is fact, proven for a few decades now by continuous scientific experiments and observations.

Billions, even.

Evolution is fact, proven since man existed. There is absolutely no way that there's a guy in the sky directing everything that happens, because that sure as hell doesn't explain super-viruses and the like, unless... God wanted us to die?

Evolution is a theory, just like Gravitational Attraction is a theory. They are theories we have very good reason to believe are reasonably accurate, but they could still be overturned at some point in the future.

If God directed all our progress, super-viruses would never make it past their basic fundamentals.

Only if we are assuming God always uses all his power (or that he is even all-powerful in every way, shape, and form!) to protect us from everything, which there really is no reason to believe. If God is so knowledgeable, perhaps he has such motives that we cannot understand? Again, assuming that he is taken to directly governing every part of existence, all the time.

Evolution doesn't disprove creationism, only the specific subset of creationism that claims all existent things were created in their precise form teleologically. There's no reason that creationists could not believe that God created everything, including the evolutionary process. Though there are still larger holes in their logic, of course.

 

[Perfection]

What is scientific about this thread?

It's about a scientific question.

There is no basis for any educated guesses about how many planets that can support life, how many may have life, etc.

That's patently false. For instance, we know about how many planets exist in the observable universe. We know many facts about what life on Earth requires. ETC. ETC.

Certainly we do not have nearly enough to make a definitive answer. But we do have plenty of scientific approaches to the question!

So really this whole thread is just about gut feelings. Creationism has as much right to be here as science.

Baloney! Speculation about what might be true is FAR better than Creationism which demonstrably false.


Speculation about science within the frame of science is great. Creationism is anti scientific.

 

[Synobun]

Evolution is a theory, just like Gravitational Attraction is a theory. They are theories we have very good reason to believe are reasonably accurate, but they could still be overturned at some point in the future.

True, but they were theories at the very beginning. Ever since a few more scientists came around, tweaked a few decimal points and trends in the "theory", it's been a pretty solid thing. We've even tracked evolution of bacteria in laboratories, proving the "theory" to be "fact".

IMO a theory is only a theory if it's still up in the air in terms of validity.

Only if we are assuming God always uses all his power (or that he is even all-powerful in every way, shape, and form!) to protect us from everything, which there really is no reason to believe. If God is so knowledgeable, perhaps he has such motives that we cannot understand? Again, assuming that he is taken to directly governing every part of existence, all the time.

Evolution doesn't disprove creationism, only the specific subset of creationism that claims all existent things were created in their precise form teleologically. There's no reason that creationists could not believe that God created everything, including the evolutionary process. Though there are still larger holes in their logic, of course.

A motive to kill humans. Understandable, if you believe in what the Bible says.

But really, if he didn't want to protect us, or really, be involved, why send his son down to die and create a salvation for Humanity?

Many, many flaws in creationism.

This is where creationism is a "theory". It's basically 99% in the air and really, it's close to impossible to prove it unless you scrape the bottom of the barrel when you have vast amounts of evidence for evolution.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

True, but they were theories at the very beginning. Ever since a few more scientists came around, tweaked a few decimal points and trends in the "theory", it's been a pretty solid thing. We've even tracked evolution of bacteria in laboratories, proving the "theory" to be "fact".

Many theories, like those of the structure of the Atom, were radically revamped several times.

Both of the theories I mentioned before have been and are still being amended today. They are by no means "complete" in the sense you seem to think; if they were, there would be no point in studying them!

Any way, something being observable and then explained somehow doesn't make that explanation fact, nor does the ability to predict the results thereof beforehand, except the fact that that specific event happened.

IMO a theory is only a theory if it's still up in the air in terms of validity.

Your opinion doesn't matter here, we are talking about facts and definitions. Evolution is still a theory. That a 1 cm cube of water is a milliliter is a fact.

Remember that a geocentric universe was a long-time "fact" as well. And a perfectly spherical moon. And circular orbits. And atoms that were impossible to break down further.

A motive to kill humans. Understandable, if you believe in what the Bible says.

But really, if he didn't want to protect us, or really, be involved, why send his son down to die and create a salvation for Humanity?

None of that really disproves my postulation that God might know more than we do, and see further ahead. Many decisions made by a parent may seem ludicrous and without warrant to their child, but that does not make them unsound or unjustified.

 

[Synobun]

Many theories, like those of the structure of the Atom, were radically revamped several times.

Both of the theories I mentioned before have been and are still being amended today. They are by no means "complete" in the sense you seem to think; if they were, there would be no point in studying them!

Any way, something being observable and then explained somehow doesn't make that explanation fact, nor does the ability to predict the results thereof beforehand, except the fact that that specific event happened.

Facts are studied on a daily basis. And the reason evolution is continuously studied is because of new discoveries. But all the new discoveries follow the basic principles. Like the properties of life in Biology, more and more different discoveries are found every year, but they all follow the properties and basic fundamentals.

You're not going to study something once and suddenly know all that there is to know. Continuous investigation reveals new cleared up territory, with a plethora of data available to add to the "facts".

But theories that turn into fact are never complete, there will likely always be a little bit of additional data found every now and then to add onto the pile, maybe adjust a few things, but if the basic principles of the theory check out every single time, how exactly is it not fact? Because there's more data to be had?

Your opinion doesn't matter here, we are talking about facts and definitions. Evolution is still a theory. That a 1 cm cube of water is a milliliter is a fact.

Remember that a geocentric universe was a long-time "fact" as well. And a perfectly spherical moon. And circular orbits. And atoms that were impossible to break down further.

Opinion does matter, since all the facts on this world began as an opinion

Well a perceived fact is different than an actual fact. Something pumped into your brain doesn't mean it's fact. ie, religion.

None of that really disproves my postulation that God might know more than we do, and see further ahead. Many decisions made by a parent may seem ludicrous and without warrant to their child, but that does not make them unsound or unjustified.

Many decisions made by a parent are supported by a "Because I said so" reason. Theory and fact aren't based off "because I said so" unless ridiculous theories come into place where, lo and behold, they have to scrap the bottom of the barrel in order to get some form of evidence.

 

[The Imp]

Oh Goddamnit, take the creationist trash to my thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=251754

I don't want every thread on science to just become this one stupid subject.

As an online science discussion grows longer, the probability of a YEC hack posting approaches 1

 

[bhsup]

That's patently false. For instance, we know about how many planets exist in the observable universe. We know many facts about what life on Earth requires. ETC. ETC.

How pray tell do you know that? You cannot just make assumptions based on what we've observed around some dozens of planets. You know why? Because those observations keep altering what is assumed. And also.. "observable universe"...what about what you cannot observe? No, you guys "know" nothing of the kind. And your guesses will keep changing as you observe more and more stuff, particularly since the knowledge of actual planets in other systems is so new to begin with.

 

[Perfection]

How pray tell do you know that?

Well, we know about how many stars there are, we can make reasonable upper and lower bound estimates of planets per star, and we've got a count for the number of planets, sure we're talking about making estimates on merely the order of magnitude, but for some purposes that's good enough!

You cannot just make assumptions based on what we've observed around some dozens of planets. You know why? Because those observations keep altering what is assumed.

Who says you can't assume something provided you recognize that it's an assumption? We are allowed to speculate about science!

And also.. "observable universe"...what about what you cannot observe?

What about it?

No, you guys "know" nothing of the kind. And your guesses will keep changing as you observe more and more stuff, particularly since the knowledge of actual planets in other systems is so new to begin with.

We don't know nothing! Knowing something within a few orders of magnitude is knowing more than nothing!

 

[bhsup]

No no, you said you know about how many planets there are. Making a claim like that, I expect it to be pretty damned accurate and not subject to change with future discoveries.

 

[Perfection]

No no, you said you know about how many planets there are. Making a claim like that, I expect it to be pretty damned accurate and not subject to change with future discoveries.

I said about. I believe Give or take a few order magnitudes is sometimes fine here.

In any case that's merely a quibble about my terminology. It still represents knowledge we do have (IE there are vast ranges of numbers that we can exclude as being plausible)

 

[Trev]

Life is too complex to arise by chance and therefore can only have been created by an intelligent being, ie God.
http://creation.com/lifes-irreducible-structure-part-1-autopoiesis
http://creation.com/mechanisms-of-gene-regulation

 

[Perfection]

Intelligent Design is worthless and should have no bearing on this discussion, wanna talk about why it's worthless? I have a thread for it: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=251754

 

[Synobun]

Life is too complex to arise by chance and therefore can only have been created by an intelligent being, ie God.
http://creation.com/lifes-irreducible-structure-part-1-autopoiesis
http://creation.com/mechanisms-of-gene-regulation

I looked at the first link and skim-read it.

It appears to just be saying that because molecules bond in a certain pattern it must of been intelligent design, and that water is complex yet a simple product when alone.

I will give you an example. Say, you meet a girl (assuming you're a boy), and the chemistry between you two hits off just great, you form a bond with each other. Now, you perceive yourself as in love, as do millions and millions of other people on the world. Are you going to say, that God creates this pattern each time and not allowing the chemicals and nervous system to formulate its own reactions?

You will say, that the two are not alike at all, but all cells have a nucleus, which have the programming of the cell's commands. Which is why, many viruses seek the nucleus to "override" it and corrupt some of its data, just like how a computer virus would. That is why often you see "un-natural" formations in cell structure, ie. mutations, extremely fast growth in a plant, etc, because something entered the nucleus and changed data around. Everything started at the original product, and went from there.

Water is a complex system inside cells because of the acids it combines with. While when the water is taken OUT of the cell, it is pure H2O, when in it forms nicely into the cell's system. That is why extreme amounts of pure water trying to come in, can possibly kill the cell or overload the network. The cell requires a certain amount of water to operate, and it can bloat a bit as well, but there's always the saying that,

Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

 

[Trev]

You have read some of it, well done. But not well enough to get the main points.
The inner workings of a cell are so complex that it is impossible for them to occur by chance in a single series of mutations or whatever. But they cannot evolve by a multiple series of mutations as the cell machinery will not work at all partially evolved. Therefore you have the quandary of either an implausible series of hundreds or thousands of non working mutations continuing until you get a functioning item of cell machinery (and they cannot be selected for during that time as there is no advantage to the cell) or it happens in one giant mutation that involves so many changes it is just as implausible, and not only that, the DNA needs to have a corresponding mutation at the same time so it can replicate in its desendants, totally impossible without a designer building the cell.
The other thing is that there is no evidence of ANY cell at anytime in 'evolutionary history' surviving or thriving without these complex functions, so does that mean they arose from inanimate matter by chance as a fully functioning complex cell? Impossible but necessary for evolutionary theory.

 

[Cutlass]

No. You would like to believe that cells are too complex to evolve by themselves. You can't offer any evidence to that effect.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Friends don't let friends read creation.com

 

[Synobun]

You have read some of it, well done. But not well enough to get the main points.
The inner workings of a cell are so complex that it is impossible for them to occur by chance in a single series of mutations or whatever. But they cannot evolve by a multiple series of mutations as the cell machinery will not work at all partially evolved. Therefore you have the quandary of either an implausible series of hundreds or thousands of non working mutations continuing until you get a functioning item of cell machinery (and they cannot be selected for during that time as there is no advantage to the cell) or it happens in one giant mutation that involves so many changes it is just as implausible, and not only that, the DNA needs to have a corresponding mutation at the same time so it can replicate in its desendants, totally impossible without a designer building the cell.
The other thing is that there is no evidence of ANY cell at anytime in 'evolutionary history' surviving or thriving without these complex functions, so does that mean they arose from inanimate matter by chance as a fully functioning complex cell? Impossible but necessary for evolutionary theory.

Last I checked, the cell itself is the "designer" as all the structures inside work together to produce the replica.

And mutations happen fast in single cellular DNA.

 

[Perfection]

But they cannot evolve by a multiple series of mutations as the cell machinery will not work at all partially evolved.

This is false. Evidence put forth by creationists like Behe (suck it, Mike, I'm calling you a creationist), is stupidly flawed.