 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
| Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||
Posted on 10/13/2009 8:14:47 PM PDT by Michael Barnes
Actually that argument only works with a small number of ET civilizations. Increase the number and it selfdestructs by assuming that no E/T civilivations will be able to think like we do - H/S really must be special after all.
>> just plug that Drake equation into an excel spreadsheet .... life in other galaxies? definitely outside our area code. <<
Depends if you have long distance charges on dialing a StarGate......
The Liberal Fermi Paradox - Any civilization that evolves technology will evolve environmental Luddites that will force their society to devolve back into mud hut living which will eventually destroy their civilization outright.
What if intelligent life takes a “Bunker Mentality”...
What if we received the newscasts from another civilization being invaded by a massively powerful army of aliens?
We would probably be so scared by this we would either try to develop tech to meet the threat head on or convert the earth into a “Bunker World” to make it look like a lifeless Nuclear war scarred planet and all move into underground cities cowering in fear and hoping they pass over our planet and leave it alone.
I like that guy. While I did not listen to all of it now (will save for after work) my guess is they don’t use radio any way. Probably gravity waves.
This assumption itself is the result of other assumptions; namely that simple forms of life are truly simple, and thus common, and that random changes to genetic code can create more complex systems instead of chaos. The simplest forms of life are incredibly complex. "Simple" cells are anything but simple! The idea that one only needs the correct chemicals and a little outside energy to get the process rolling is absurd. To then go on to suppose that random mutations lead to anything other than maximized entropy is equally absurd. That's like believing that random changes to the memory locations on your hard drive will magically create a new web browser.
The real answer is D: Simple life is so complex as to be impossible to occur through natural processes; the odds are too long. Nature always prefers low energy states and low levels of organization over higher ones. The math just doesn't work. Thus, since life could not have arisen on this planet through natural processes, it didn't. We were created. And if we are the result of an Intelligent Creator's intentional act, there is no reason to suppose that He duplicated this act anywhere else in the universe; hence, the "Great Silence".
Ok. My quick estimate was indeed well off. Maybe about 1 millionth of the Milky Way is much closer to the truth.
Depending on your values for the Drake equation, that still sounds to me like a pretty darn good explanation for the Great Silence. It’s not necessarily that the galaxy is so silent, it’s that we’re still virtually deaf.
Your position that it’s impossible for complex life to exist without being specifically created is an absurdity. It’s logical conclusion, really, is that God can’t exist either, since God can be understood to be far more complex than humanity.
You will reply: But God has always existed. Fine, but that’s a belief you take totally on faith, since you present no compelling evidence for the belief. Logically, you might as well believe in the Great Scrambled Egg.
how could you get comical about such a serious subject? Please!
Reality is complex enough that simplistic answers are usually wrong, or at least not a terribly accurate description.
In fact, the Bible seems to admit as much: that via the theology revealed up through the NT, we have only a vague and simplistic conception of reality (see 1 Corinthians 13:12).
>> Assuming humans evolved like other forms of life into our present state due to natural selection...
This assumption itself is the result of other assumptions; namely that simple forms of life are truly simple, and thus common, and that random changes to genetic code can create more complex systems instead of chaos. The simplest forms of life are incredibly complex. “Simple” cells are anything but simple! The idea that one only needs the correct chemicals and a little outside energy to get the process rolling is absurd. To then go on to suppose that random mutations lead to anything other than maximized entropy is equally absurd. That’s like believing that random changes to the memory locations on your hard drive will magically create a new web browser.
The real answer is D: Simple life is so complex as to be impossible to occur through natural processes; the odds are too long. Nature always prefers low energy states and low levels of organization over higher ones. The math just doesn’t work. Thus, since life could not have arisen on this planet through natural processes, it didn’t. We were created. And if we are the result of an Intelligent Creator’s intentional act, there is no reason to suppose that He duplicated this act anywhere else in the universe; hence, the “Great Silence”. <<
If God did fill other planets in the galaxy with life would he really have to be obligated to tell US about it?
God putting only life on our little planet in our little corner of the galaxy in our little corner of the universe seems a bit like a waste of the rest of the universe...
Or perhaps the Hopenchange virus has erupted in our quadrant, therefore we are officially being quarantined for another 1000 years.
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
| Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||
LOL! I will be stealin’ that...
The explanation could be entirely sociological. Stagnation is probably the norm for civilizations. We’ve seen this on Earth, China was stagnant for a millenia before westerners budged them out of it.
Mayans couldn’t even develop the wheel as a useful tool, they eventually succumbed from a number of factors.
The Romans ascended to a point then collapsed from general corruption.
Stagnation is the rule, an ascendant and spacefairing species is not.
OK... Then show us the math. This is about probabilities, after all. Either the events supposedly leading to life are probable or they are not. There's no middle ground.
| "life could not have arisen on this planet through natural processes" |
It is therefore up to you to prove that your claim is true. I'd love to see the proof of that. But I won't, because you can't prove your claim.
You say life is too complex to have arisen through natural processes. It must therefore have been created... by a yet more complex, ALL-intelligent and ALL-powerful "Creator." And then you deny that the yet-MORE-complex "Creator" had to be created!
The position is logically absurd. You may certainly believe in God, but you can't get to Him by this particular logic.
For something truly simplistic see Psalm 14:1.
Matthew 5:22.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.