[budster101]

Hey, the smartest of us only us 10 percent of our brains. Maybe it's a limiter? Just think how dangerous we'd be if... what was I saying again?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by budster101

Hey, the smartest of us only us 10 percent of our brains. Maybe it's a limiter? Just think how dangerous we'd be if... what was I saying again?

That brain "factoid" is almost as dumb as the people who believe it means that "the other 90%" can be "used" in the same way.

[Fred_Cokebottle]

Not to mention that there could be over 200 billion galaxies!

[Fred_Cokebottle]

nm.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Fred_Cokebottle

Not to mention that there could be over 200 billion galaxies!

Link? I'm actually ignorant of the widely accepted* estimation. How many stars, average per galaxy? How many planets, average, per star? (I don't keep up with this stuff-- I'm more worried about how many lines-per-inch most days of the week) Could be trillions of planets, which means even if odds of life float around the 1/10 million mark (totally pulled out of my ass for argument's sake) that'd still mean a lot of hits. Possibly** millions of planets with life.







(*by actual astronomers, not affilliated with the 7-day History Church of Blissful Ignorance)

(**Note I said possibly. I haven't a real clue.)

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by budster101

How about this one?

Yeah, that song crossed my mind too, but as this thread progressed, I realized it needs the sound of cars crashing and flipping over


A thread about people who believe there's scientific proof of how life started, but in reality only possess a percent of all knowledge that exists. Finding an appropriate theme song will be difficult at best.

[Chuckit]

NASA says there are somewhere between 125 billion and 500 billion galaxies.

Of course, it's a widely known fact that there are actually Eleventy Billion™ galaxies.

[Kevin]

[budster101]

You sure they didn't say between 130 and 500 billion? Nice margin for error there....

Plus or minus 370 billion.....

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

IMG

LOL GET SUM NUW MATERIELL

[Kevin]

Why? When that one fits so well.

[Mastrap]

I don't understand?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by chris v

The sheer idiocy of humanity pretty much precludes the possibility of intelligent design, as far as I'm concerned. If g*d so intelligently designed us, why are we such idiots?

You, on the other hand, must have been made by the hand of an Intelligent Designer...



Please pass your genes!

[chris v]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

You, on the other hand, must have been made by the hand of an Intelligent Designer...



Please pass your jeans!

Sorry, I'm not wearing anything under them.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by budster101

You sure they didn't say between 130 and 500 billion? Nice margin for error there....

Plus or minus 370 billion.....

At the low end of that guesstimate, that's still a whole @ssload of galaxies, no? How many stars on average in each? 2-3 billion?

Let's see-- according to my handy Mac Calculator, ...(hmmm... carry the one...) that's 2.6e+20.

Yep, eleventy-billion @ssloads of stars.

[Kevin]

Doesn't matter the amount of galaxies that are there.

It matters if there are life on them.

Earth seems to have lucked out.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Doesn't matter the amount of galaxies that are there.

It matters if there are life on them.

Earth seems to have lucked out.

How many planets have you (or someone like you) visited, outside of earth, to draw a determination as to whether they have life on them or not?

Edit: Oh, wait-- you're agreeing with the original poster.

Carry on, then.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by chris v

How many planets have you (or someone like you) visited, outside of earth, to draw a determination as to whether they have life on them or not?

I don't recall saying either way chris.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't recall saying either way chris.

You didn't. I was just pointing out that overall, no matter how you approach it, though the probability exists, we still labor under complete uncertainty.

See edit above.

[Kevin]

If by you mean the original poster of this thread. No, I am not agreeing.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Fred_Cokebottle

I mean if there are over a hunderd billion stars in our galaxy...it just makes it more likely that it was a fluke, doesnt it?

-t

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Earth seems to have lucked out.

And you know this how?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Doesn't matter the amount of galaxies that are there.

It matters if there are life on them.

Earth seems to have lucked out.

"So I am in this dark room, and I touch myself. Since I define myself as alive, I declare that there is life in this dark room. This darkroom is lucky"

[Fred_Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If by you mean the original poster of this thread. No, I am not agreeing.

Precisely what part of my contention do you disagree with?

Let me just say again that I dont buy the idea that life on earth occured due to a "devine intervention". I contend that it happened because the conditions were just right due to a flukish event that produced molecules that can self replicate and similar process based on self replicating molecules can happen in other places just as well. In fact since the universe is so large similar accidental events may happen elsewhere to even result in similar carbon-based life forms that is very much like what we see in our planet. Of course such a thought is not for the weak-minded.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

And you know this how?

seem P Pronunciation Key (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
To give the impression of being; appear:

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Fred_Cokebottle

Precisely what part of my contention do you disagree with?

The accident. Like I said. Big fan of biogenesis.

bi·o·gen·e·sis P Pronunciation Key (b-jn-ss) also bi·og·e·ny (b-j-n)
n.
The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms and not from nonliving matter.

[RAILhead]

[Kevin]

[sminch]

those who believe that evolution is a crock because they think they understand the probability of life evolving will never accept that their tenuous grasp of the statistics involved might not be up to the challenge of grasping something this complex. ridiculously low probabilities, so long as they're not zero, can and do still happen. hell, they will happen given a large enough number of chances to occur.

if the probability of life evolving from scratch is f@<& all (which we all accept), but if you multiply this by an absolute buggeryload of planets, you'll end up with a reasonably chance of it happening.

it's like the probability of a monkey random hitting a typewriter producing legible english - there's a damn low chance in any given minute that he'll string a sentence together entirely by chance, but leave him and a few thousand other chimps at it for long enough and one of them will eventually type a knock-knock joke. or if you play poker for long enough you will, eventually, get a straight flush right off the bat. it's damn rare, for sure, but give it time and it'll happen.

the thing is, the human brain evolved / was designed to deal with everyday occurences in a small community. your brain can cope with the low chance of something happening, such as a flood hitting the village (1 in 100 chance, perhaps), one of your few dozen neighbours getting eaten by a bear (1 in 50,000), someone you know getting hit by lightning (1 in 1,000,000), or whatever - these are relatively common, they do happen occasionally, we can deal with that*.

what your brain can't cope with is one in a trillion, or one in a buggeryload (see above) - unless you've got a lot of experience in picturing this your brain equates odds like this as zero. even more so if it fits your worldview. if there's one in a trillion chance of your neighbours getting attacked by a bear that happens to suffer from heart disease and so promptly falls dead at the neighbour's feet, then bursts into flame because it got some tar on it earlier that day and your neighbour dropped his cigarette on it when he got such a fright, then you'll freak out, and shout "omfg, god must have saved him!".

god was not involved - it's just that the probability was so low that you can't even imagine this could have happened by chance, so there must be intelligent, godly intervention.

ahem, sorry about that - must have been overdoing the coffee this morning! my 2c, anyway.

sminch

* note that these get buggered up now as random events like this are now broadcast worldwide, so it's not just our village and our neighbours that we know about - if there's a flood ten thousand miles away we will hear about it. hence we get really freaked out when there's a random nasty event which happens to someone in a far off place - we are designed to understand random events that happen to a small community, say 100 people, but we are now exposed to all those hugely unlikely things that happen to 6 billion people. our brains are many orders of magnitude out of kilter when it comes to recognising the true probability of these freak events.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I will keep this picture. I like it.

...and thank you for removing the quote signs...

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by Fred_Cokebottle

Precisely what part of my contention do you disagree with?

Let me just say again that I dont buy the idea that life on earth occured due to a "devine intervention". I contend that it happened because the conditions were just right due to a flukish event that produced molecules that can self replicate and similar process based on self replicating molecules can happen in other places just as well. In fact since the universe is so large similar accidental events may happen elsewhere to even result in similar carbon-based life forms that is very much like what we see in our planet. Of course such a thought is not for the weak-minded.

Well said Fred!!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin

seem P Pronunciation Key (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
To give the impression of being; appear:

And you know that how?

[budster101]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

"So I am in this dark room, and I touch myself. Since I define myself as alive, I declare that there is life in this dark room. This darkroom is lucky"

Luckey...

-Napolean Dynomite


Because you have tactile feedback determined by your brain and nerve connections you deem yourself in existence? What if you lose all feeling in your body? Is there life?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

And you know that how?

Because I looked the word up in the dictionary?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Because I looked the word up in the dictionary?

He meant: "How do you know it appears in such a manner?"

And, if you were generalizing a point that you now admit is just your opinion,

In what way does it appear to you in such a manner? To believe that it appears a certain way, you must have a certain knowledge of things. What knowledge do you have?

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by budster101

Luckey...

-Napolean Dynomite


Because you have tactile feedback determined by your brain and nerve connections you deem yourself in existence? What if you lose all feeling in your body? Is there life?

Well hello budster? You alive? You for real? prove it!

Seriously, I was trying to demonstrate by the absurd the reasoning of our illustrious colleague kevin.

And he still did not get it btw, since he has not replied to anyone who asked him to back his assertion up. He laughs a lot, but does not do much else.

[budster101]

Nope. Don't mind me....

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

He meant: "How do you know it appears in such a manner?"

I said it "SEEMS to be lucky"

That means, from what I CAN SEE, it is lucky.

That doesn't mean I am doubting any other existences.

You guys really argue over the most inane things.

Really.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You guys really argue over the most inane things.

Really.

Funny, it is always about a lot of others against only you.

You must be lucky...

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I said it "SEEMS to be lucky"

That means, from what I CAN SEE, it is lucky.

Lucky for you or the universe?

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I said it "SEEMS to be lucky"

That means, from what I CAN SEE, it is lucky.

That doesn't mean I am doubting any other existences.

You guys really argue over the most inane things.

Really.

Strategic partial-quoting. Since you won't answer the previous questions, here's another,

You can't see much, so how can you think that it appears to be lucky?

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You guys really argue over the most inane things.

Seems to me you didn't express yourself very clearly.

[chris v]

Define "luck" as opposed to "chance" with the difference clearly stated, please-- anyone. This is something that has always given me pause-- when people declare random chance to be luck. What is luck?

[Mastrap]

When chance works in your favour.

Next

[chris v]

So, it seems that life happened by chance on Earth, and that is in our favor, according to Kevin.

[budster101]

Well, considering (along the lines of sight) we only have at our avail the visible spectrum, as well as a limited amount of hearing spectrum to work with, there is far too much we are limited to in our understanding and capapbilities as frail beings. Even though we are, for the most part, on top of the food chaing (Sharks / Bears / Gators / Big Cats, props to them) we can pretty much think our way through everything except for how the fscuk we got here in the first place!

I mean really, we only resemble some monkees and that has to be some sort of joke right?

Will we eventually evolve into a greater unserstanding of ourselves?

Look at technology and progress since the first centuries. We are exponentially moving forward so, maybe we will discover life like ours on other planets and or build quantum computers and actually see into the future as time and space are folded, then travel to distant galaxies through these holes in the fabric of space...

Nah.

[GranolaBoy]

Originally Posted by sminch

those who believe that evolution is a crock because they think they understand the probability of life evolving will never accept that their tenuous grasp of the statistics involved might not be up to the challenge of grasping something this complex. ridiculously low probabilities, so long as they're not zero, can and do still happen. hell, they will happen given a large enough number of chances to occur.

if the probability of life evolving from scratch is f@<& all (which we all accept), but if you multiply this by an absolute buggeryload of planets, you'll end up with a reasonably chance of it happening.

it's like the probability of a monkey random hitting a typewriter producing legible english - there's a damn low chance in any given minute that he'll string a sentence together entirely by chance, but leave him and a few thousand other chimps at it for long enough and one of them will eventually type a knock-knock joke. or if you play poker for long enough you will, eventually, get a straight flush right off the bat. it's damn rare, for sure, but give it time and it'll happen.

the thing is, the human brain evolved / was designed to deal with everyday occurences in a small community. your brain can cope with the low chance of something happening, such as a flood hitting the village (1 in 100 chance, perhaps), one of your few dozen neighbours getting eaten by a bear (1 in 50,000), someone you know getting hit by lightning (1 in 1,000,000), or whatever - these are relatively common, they do happen occasionally, we can deal with that*.

what your brain can't cope with is one in a trillion, or one in a buggeryload (see above) - unless you've got a lot of experience in picturing this your brain equates odds like this as zero. even more so if it fits your worldview. if there's one in a trillion chance of your neighbours getting attacked by a bear that happens to suffer from heart disease and so promptly falls dead at the neighbour's feet, then bursts into flame because it got some tar on it earlier that day and your neighbour dropped his cigarette on it when he got such a fright, then you'll freak out, and shout "omfg, god must have saved him!".

god was not involved - it's just that the probability was so low that you can't even imagine this could have happened by chance, so there must be intelligent, godly intervention.

ahem, sorry about that - must have been overdoing the coffee this morning! my 2c, anyway.

sminch

* note that these get buggered up now as random events like this are now broadcast worldwide, so it's not just our village and our neighbours that we know about - if there's a flood ten thousand miles away we will hear about it. hence we get really freaked out when there's a random nasty event which happens to someone in a far off place - we are designed to understand random events that happen to a small community, say 100 people, but we are now exposed to all those hugely unlikely things that happen to 6 billion people. our brains are many orders of magnitude out of kilter when it comes to recognising the true probability of these freak events.

I appreciate the time you took to type this out. However, you make many assumptions about any theist's grasp of statistics. It's as though all competent statisticians have no choice but to agree that evolution (from dust) is indisputable. Clearly you get the fact that there are plenty of statisticians (not to mention mathematicians) who believe in some form of God and perhaps divine origins of man.

This is the point where many scientific types insist "well, anyone who disagrees can't be a very good scientist, can they?" And then the forum carts out an sh*tload of examples of prominent brilliant believers in God. It devolves into "Well I just believe x or y" and then we're done.

The point is this: It isn't as though the scientists are all in-the-know while those ignorant of statistics fall into some convenient acceptance of a god. This oversimplification of the argument misses the mark and makes it appear as though you, the teacher in this case, possess limited insight into the matter. Just tryin' to help out, here.

Me? I dunno either way. But I don't like when people get uppity about it.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by budster101

Well, considering (along the lines of sight) we only have at our avail the visible spectrum, as well as a limited amount of hearing spectrum to work with, there is far too much we are limited to in our understanding and capapbilities as frail beings. Even though we are, for the most part, on top of the food chaing (Sharks / Bears / Gators / Big Cats, props to them) we can pretty much think our way through everything except for how the fscuk we got here in the first place!

I mean really, we only resemble some monkees and that has to be some sort of joke right?

Will we eventually evolve into a greater unserstanding of ourselves?

Look at technology and progress since the first centuries. We are exponentially moving forward so, maybe we will discover life like ours on other planets and or build quantum computers and actually see into the future as time and space are folded, then travel to distant galaxies through these holes in the fabric of space...

Nah.

At least we have developed the capacity to ponder, or bicker, as you may have it.

[Kerrigan]

The argument that life is bound to happen eventually given the vastness of space and time is compelling, however the major question is How does life evolve from non-living matter? We know how species evolve over time, but how does bacteria evolve from water or rocks?

I'm not arguing that life has some divine purpose, but the thought that living matter can come from non-living matter seems not just unlikely, but downright impossible. It will probably always be a mystery.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The argument that life is bound to happen eventually given the vastness of space and time is compelling, however the major question is How does life evolve from non-living matter? We know how species evolve over time, but how does bacteria evolve from water or rocks?

I'm not arguing that life has some divine purpose, but the thought that living matter can come from non-living matter seems not just unlikely, but downright impossible. It will probably always be a mystery.

Defining life may "help".

However, no one has the same definition.