HotDog Fish
Leftist Loyalist
Oi, one of these I'm going to need a sarcasm, condencending voiced smiley of some kind
Creation vs Evolution
- Thread starter Total_cho
- Start date
- Status
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
You are right. That formula refers to the probability of coming into contact with this life, which is very low.
Do the math. If you fill in all the numbers with percentages (which is what you are supposed to do) it an extremely low number. Why? 0.1*0.1 is 0.01. Imagine a low number (i.e. 1 to the -20 power) times itself many times. That is why there are few chances of intelligent life.
I can't find the exact formula (the book is at my summer house) but it actually goes up to q or x, meaning I left parts out.
CG
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
There is strong evidence that we are alone in this galaxy at least. 50,000 years is a heartbeat in cosmic time, but very long in human time. Accepting for the moment the currently most populat cosmology, our star is a late comer to the universe. So, if there are carbon/oxygen life out there with our intelligence or close to it, why aren't we finding their litter?
Any evolution line that allows intelligent life to be common, also allows it to form in a certain time band after the formation of the star. This being the case, the oldest stars would have civilization first (Which would mean that they are playing Civ MMMMCIV now).
Using ourselves as a model, over about 50,000 years the intelligence would progress through its growing pains to the stars and spread out to fill a galaxy. As I said 50,000 years is short. There are 20,000 such periods in a billion years, but many stars are a billion years older than ours. Hence 20,000 chances for each star to produce us, or something close enough to recognize. Once here, they would leave tracks and trash for us to find. We have not found any, and we looked hard.
The conclusion is that the odds on developing our type of intelligence is vanishingly small. Factors, of which we have no understanding, may be involved. To determine the likelihood of similar life, we would have to isolate the factors, determine a probability of each, etc, etc.
Suggestions are that certain harmful radiation must be present, but in limited amounts. Water, ice, land ratios may be critical. Large meteor strikes may be needed. Cometary matter, glaciation, salination, tidal effects, and plate techtonics are also mentioned. We just dont know. Its like we can see three frames of a 3 hour long movie, and only small parts of them.
My wife strongly agrees with Agent Mulder. I think we are alone.
Regardless, there is a sizable group of scientists that believe that the evidence points to an outside force purposefully causing life to evolve. The common analogy is that of a watch discovered in a field. One does not need to understand how the watch functions to know that there is intelligence behind its orderly execution.
J
Any evolution line that allows intelligent life to be common, also allows it to form in a certain time band after the formation of the star. This being the case, the oldest stars would have civilization first (Which would mean that they are playing Civ MMMMCIV now).
Using ourselves as a model, over about 50,000 years the intelligence would progress through its growing pains to the stars and spread out to fill a galaxy. As I said 50,000 years is short. There are 20,000 such periods in a billion years, but many stars are a billion years older than ours. Hence 20,000 chances for each star to produce us, or something close enough to recognize. Once here, they would leave tracks and trash for us to find. We have not found any, and we looked hard.
The conclusion is that the odds on developing our type of intelligence is vanishingly small. Factors, of which we have no understanding, may be involved. To determine the likelihood of similar life, we would have to isolate the factors, determine a probability of each, etc, etc.
Suggestions are that certain harmful radiation must be present, but in limited amounts. Water, ice, land ratios may be critical. Large meteor strikes may be needed. Cometary matter, glaciation, salination, tidal effects, and plate techtonics are also mentioned. We just dont know. Its like we can see three frames of a 3 hour long movie, and only small parts of them.
My wife strongly agrees with Agent Mulder. I think we are alone.
Regardless, there is a sizable group of scientists that believe that the evidence points to an outside force purposefully causing life to evolve. The common analogy is that of a watch discovered in a field. One does not need to understand how the watch functions to know that there is intelligence behind its orderly execution.
J
MCdread
Couldn't she get drowned?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2001
- Messages
- 5,348
I'm not saying that the chances are high. The original formula tries to estimate the number of civilizations possessing the technology to communicate with us, knowing that we only possess that same technology ourselves since the XXth century (assuming that they would try to communicate via electromagnetic waves).
However, if you think that the universe is 12 billion years old and has more stars than you can imagine, it can also be used to show that there were probably a lot of planets that developed life.
But as I said, I do not like that formula. Almost all the terms are unknown, and the presence of some of them in the formula are questionable. It reveals also the one that I consider to be the bigest paradox of modern exobiology: trying to abandon anthropocentrism, but using anthropocentric premises for it. We seem to want to find an Earth II, inhabited by inteligent humanoids (with sharp-pointed ears like Mr. Spock...), but we know so little of the Universe.
That said, I'm convinced that there is extraterrestrial life, but about the nature of such life, we can only guess.
About the topic, unless you follow the Bible literally (which not even the Pope ever thought of doing), what's the problem with accepting evolution as the right theory to explain the history of life in this planet, and at the same time keep your faith in a creator God?
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
That is my view on evolution/creationism. The Pope has advocated evolution, he had said "There is room for both in Catholicism", which is why I don't understand why there are still Catholic Bible Literalists. I had never known the Pope thought this way when I came up with my (and the Pope's) belief. I was lying in bed one night when I figured out that they could both coexist. I ask my religion teacher the next day, to find out that it is already the Catholic teaching 
How do Bible Literalists explain all the scientific evidence pointing to evolution? You must change with the times, but not give up your old ways. See that the Bible is figurative in most parts. The writers 2500 years ago couldn't have known how the world was created, so they tried their best to apply what God told them. If I went around saying, in 500 BC, that the universe is 14 billion years old, and that we evolved from monkeys, I would be laughed at. They had to apply the truth in a figurative matter that the people then could understand.
CG
Sanaz
Gorilla Joe
Both. I don't see them as mutually exclusive ideas/theories. And my vision or interpretation of god may not be the same as the next guy's.
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
I'm definately a creationist surrounded by evolutionists in my neighborhood. I personally think evolution is a load of ****, but I'm not going to poke fun at evolution here.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
What makes you think they would be like humans? and what makes you think that just because we haven't come into contact with them they don't exist? Do you actually think a species, that can't even seem to understand simple ecology is the pinnacle of life, or for that matter even lies on the evolutionary path to becoming the pinnacle of life?
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Imagine what the idea of a "Bible" written almost completely figuratively by mere humans, being the word of some "God," sounds like to atheists. A theory with far more scientific backing, like evolution is far more likely if it were an either/or situation. (which it probably ISN'T)
newfangle
hates you.
Its not "poking fun" my Catholic friend. Please feel free to present your arguments.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
I don't beleive I said anything of this nature.
Yes, well, most atheists I know already have no respect for me.
CG
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
What are you talking about. I know the world is round. As a matter of fact, Darwin said it was flat.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
You know, Zarn, I do believe it has already been said in this thread that the
Pope has agreed with evolution. Now, I'm not sure, but isn't disagreeing with the Pope kind of bad?
CG
Pope has agreed with evolution. Now, I'm not sure, but isn't disagreeing with the Pope kind of bad?
CG
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
He siad it was possible to get people off his back. Besides, Catholics no longer think the pope is infailable. That died 100's of years ago.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Well, the popes you are talking about had mistresses and answered to secular nations. Popes aren't infallible, but they are about as good today as they get (except some of the very early ones). I prefer not to disagree with the Vicar of Christ (the offical term for the Pope), especially when his statements make alot of sense to me.
CG
- Status
