• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Statistically life somewhere else is almost certain

We don't know how often abiogenesis takes place, or even if it is physically possible that it can occur more than once. Therefore we have no basis for saying that it is likely that abiogenesis takes place frequently based on the fact that there are a large number of stars. That is a ludicrous non sequitur.

When people say that life on other planets is statistically likely, I tend to attribute it to ignorance of the fact that abiogenesis is not understood, rather than outright stupidity.

WHen people say things like statistically likely they are not making a positive claim. Highly likely or even extremely likely still isnt a positive claim of anything.

Probabilities are open to change with new information they are not at all dogmatic propositions or numbers. I would be in agreement with you if someone was telling that you must accept that aliens exists somewhere despite what you believe about aliens.

This is where some theists (and atheists) run into trouble, they insist that you have to believe their stories. Its ok to be confidant in your beliefs, nothing wrong with gentlemanly assertiveness. If you truly believe something why not be assertive instead of wishy washy? Of course one must accept that not everyone will agree. But if you look at this thread most of the posters are not trying to make a undeniable positive claim about aliens. Most are just saying look there is a some logic in the concept that there may be aliens out there. Mathematical statistics (which the entire concept is centered around) isnt defined as a positive claim. SO why are you pointing out the obvious here, do you think that you are the only one that knows this?
 
I love that you said contaminated. Life spreads like a virus.

though my current job is not quite as focused on microbiology as my previous position was, i still work with E. coli when making plasmid preps. we either grow it up in LB or terrific broth, and i have to be pretty careful to only open the bottle in a biosafety hood. if i open the growth media on the bench, all sorts of interesting things float in. this has been a pet theory of mine about the origin of life on earth; a nutrient-rich environment was contaminated by incoming space debris. earth is now so spectacularly and wonderfully contaminated that the contamination has invented the internet. try to replicate that in the fridge, lol.

where and how life originated, i can't speculate. that is one of the most fascinating questions.
 
I made a post that pointed out a theist strategy thats all I did, unless you are a theist (and using that strategy) I see no reason why you believe that I was talking about you.

If you say so.
 
WHen people say things like statistically likely they are not making a positive claim. Highly likely or even extremely likely still isnt a positive claim of anything.

Probabilities are open to change with new information they are not at all dogmatic propositions or numbers. I would be in agreement with you if someone was telling that you must accept that aliens exists somewhere despite what you believe about aliens.

This is where some theists (and atheists) run into trouble, they insist that you have to believe their stories. Its ok to be confidant in your beliefs, nothing wrong with gentlemanly assertiveness. If you truly believe something why not be assertive instead of wishy washy? Of course one must accept that not everyone will agree. But if you look at this thread most of the posters are not trying to make a undeniable positive claim about aliens. Most are just saying look there is a some logic in the concept that there may be aliens out there. Mathematical statistics (which the entire concept is centered around) isnt defined as a positive claim. SO why are you pointing out the obvious here, do you think that you are the only one that knows this?

You just demonstrated that you don't understand statistics.
 
I'm trying to find the source to what I'm about to claim, perhaps others have heard this and know the source.....

So as a way of disclaimer, I admit that I'm taking this from memory, but I'm certain that I have it correct....

There are more stars in the universe then there are ways to scramble the atoms in your body. In other words, there are only a finite number of ways to arrange the atoms in your body, there are more stars then their are ways to arrange those atoms......

Think about that.

I am pretty certain that life just doesn't exist on the planet earth. I would wager there is abundant life out there. Now in what form or if we as humans would be able to recognize it, is another matter.
 
That isn't true. We have quite a few theories and one or all of them may be true. What I'm talking about in particular is the fact that we have been able to synthesize over twenty different kinds of amino acid chains from water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. The not unreasonable logic follows that if we can so simply recreate the development of such an essential organic component for life it is not hard to imagine that over billions of years across quadrillions and quadrillions of planets that this process or something similar to it would repeat itself naturally. I understand what you are trying to say but your vehemence is very strange and misplaced.

No. You are simply wrong, and wishful thinking about aliens is clouding your judgment about what is otherwise a very simple matter.

We don't understand abiogenesis at all, we simply do not know how it happens. We don't even have a good theory. We don't have any information about the likelihood of its occurrence. Therefore we can't draw probabilities about it as is being suggested in this thread.

It is incredibly stupid to say: "Abiogenesis happens one time out of X, and there are sextillions of opportunities where abiogenesis might occur, therefore it is almost certain that abiogenesis has occurred a second time." That's just stupidity. We don't know what X is. The chances of abiogenesis occurring might be one in a septillion, for all we know; and that's assuming that it is even possible for a second instance to occur at all, which is by no means a given.

We simply haven't got enough information to make a determination about the likelihood of another instance of abiogenesis. To suggest otherwise is stupid or ignorant or both.
 
No. You are simply wrong, and wishful thinking about aliens is clouding your judgment about what is otherwise a very simple matter.

We don't understand abiogenesis at all, we simply do not know how it happens. We don't even have a good theory. We don't have any information about the likelihood of its occurrence. Therefore we can't draw probabilities about it as is being suggested in this thread.

It is incredibly stupid to say: "Abiogenesis happens one time out of X, and there are sextillions of opportunities where abiogenesis might occur, therefore it is almost certain that abiogenesis has occurred a second time." That's just stupidity. We don't know what X is. The chances of abiogenesis occurring might be one in a septillion, for all we know; and that's assuming that it is even possible for a second instance to occur at all, which is by no means a given.

We simply haven't got enough information to make a determination about the likelihood of another instance of abiogenesis. To suggest otherwise is stupid or ignorant or both.

I don't know what to say. That's simply untrue. We actually have several good theories and it is in fact the prevailing consensus that it is the mechanism for the creation of life from inorganic and organic compounds. Moreover your conclusion is similarly incorrect. You conflate circumstantial evidence, which this undoubtedly and logically is, with an attempt to create hard statistical odds which you cannot do. It is a crude way of looking at this.
 
I'm trying to find the source to what I'm about to claim, perhaps others have heard this and know the source.....

So as a way of disclaimer, I admit that I'm taking this from memory, but I'm certain that I have it correct....

There are more stars in the universe then there are ways to scramble the atoms in your body. In other words, there are only a finite number of ways to arrange the atoms in your body, there are more stars then their are ways to arrange those atoms......

Think about that.
Interesting.

I don't believe that the universe began 14 billion years ago or however old they're saying it is now. I sort of just accepted the big bang theory of the origin of the universe when I was a kid because that's what the science books said. Now I believe that the universe is eternal in age and infinite in scale.

Contemplate some of the mathematical certainties if that is the case.

Not only is there life of other planets there are people on other planets. And not only is there a lot of people out there in the universe, there there are a lot of people who are exactly like you in every conceivable way out there in the vast cosmos who are currently experiencing the exact same feelings, thoughts and emotions as you are right now at this very moment. And by "a lot" I don't mean a billion or a trillion. There's an infinite number of them.

All of that is a mathematical certainty if the universe is eternal and infinite.

And in case any of you are wondering, yes I was teenager on LSD when I first contemplated that.
 
I don't know what to say. That's simply untrue. We actually have several good theories and it is in fact the prevailing consensus that it is the mechanism for the creation of life from inorganic and organic compounds. Moreover your conclusion is similarly incorrect. You conflate circumstantial evidence, which this undoubtedly and logically is, with an attempt to create hard statistical odds which you cannot do. It is a crude way of looking at this.
You are right, you don't know what to say. You ware talking nonsense. Nobody knows how abiogenesis happens or has any good theories about how those organics and inorganics interact. We have no idea what kind of probability to assoign it, not even close.
 
You are right, you don't know what to say. You ware talking nonsense. Nobody knows how abiogenesis happens or has any good theories about how those organics and inorganics interact. We have no idea what kind of probability to assoign it, not even close.

This is the part that is simply and fundamentally untrue.
 
Back
Top Bottom