• 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.

Why Was Earth and Other Planets Formed With Only Animal and Plant Life?

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
10,404
Reaction score
3,022
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So slimy creatures and creepy plants once rule the world for millions and millions of years. A giant meteorite ends the time for the giant creatures. Man shows up but only because the big boys were killed off by something trillions of miles away that just happened to hit Earth. Meteors hit us all the time but that one rock gave a whole new meaning to why this planet supports life. The position of the moon and sun are "perfect" to support life, so much so that one has to wonder why. So, if that rock never hit killing off the prehistoric creatures what would the purpose of Earth be? Before you answer it is widely held that if man had evolved he would not have survived on a planet crawling with giant Godzillas. Also, it is almost certain there are planets out there that have life but why if there are no intelligent species as well? Why is all this stuff here if there is not some incredible event or destiny in the future?
 
So slimy creatures and creepy plants once rule the world for millions and millions of years. A giant meteorite ends the time for the giant creatures. Man shows up but only because the big boys were killed off by something trillions of miles away that just happened to hit Earth. Meteors hit us all the time but that one rock gave a whole new meaning to why this planet supports life. The position of the moon and sun are "perfect" to support life, so much so that one has to wonder why. So, if that rock never hit killing off the prehistoric creatures what would the purpose of Earth be? Before you answer it is widely held that if man had evolved he would not have survived on a planet crawling with giant Godzillas. Also, it is almost certain there are planets out there that have life but why if there are no intelligent species as well? Why is all this stuff here if there is not some incredible event or destiny in the future?
You have to look at the existence of Earth--with the perfect conditions for life--in the context of the universe as a whole. There are trillions of planets out there. The odds that there is just one like ours is impossible. Lifelessness seems to be the norm actually.

That said, there is o reason to believe that Earth is the exception means that there is some sort of meaning or plan behind it. Random chance seems more likely the answer. Not very fulfilling or satisfying, but it is what it is.
 
So slimy creatures and creepy plants once rule the world for millions and millions of years. A giant meteorite ends the time for the giant creatures. Man shows up but only because the big boys were killed off by something trillions of miles away that just happened to hit Earth. Meteors hit us all the time but that one rock gave a whole new meaning to why this planet supports life. The position of the moon and sun are "perfect" to support life, so much so that one has to wonder why. So, if that rock never hit killing off the prehistoric creatures what would the purpose of Earth be? Before you answer it is widely held that if man had evolved he would not have survived on a planet crawling with giant Godzillas. Also, it is almost certain there are planets out there that have life but why if there are no intelligent species as well? Why is all this stuff here if there is not some incredible event or destiny in the future?

Well first off.

There is no other evidence that there is plant or animal life on any other planet. So we haven't found any plant or animal life or something recognizable to that extent on other planets. We are looking for microbial life on Mars as we speak and depending on what news you read, some said we found microbial life in a rock on Mars, some say we didn't. We know that we found evidence that there MAY have been microbial life on Mars 30 years ago. So we're 30 years too late to actually find it, just trace remains. Search for :Viking mission microbial life

ok.

Secondly.
Our solar system is quite special. Most solar systems that we see, so most other "suns" suck. Ours is really, really cool. Within this cool solar system there are a few planets and ours just happens to be within something called the "goldilocks zone" which is a zone that is close enough to the sun to be heated at above freezing temperatures at times and far away that we aren't a molting planet like Venus is, which is basically scolding hot. This "goldilocks" zone is quite a large zone. I mean it's not a small area. It's quite a big one. And the planet, our planet, moves in an eliptical ( oval ) fashion around the sun and that's how we get seasons. depending on where you are on the planet, 2 seasons or 4 seasons, but we get seasons. But because we move in an oval way, sometimes we are closer to the sun, sometimes we are farther... but we're still in the goldilocks zone. So it's a big, big area in space.


And third.
So we haven't found evidence of macroorganism life on this planet farther away than the dinosaurs. Some people once speculated that there may have been another "era" of life on the planet before the dinos, but there is no evidence of that. So we are part of the rebirth of life, a sort of, 2nd generation of life on the planet though we have SOME animals that exist from that dino era... like crocodiles and cockroaches and other insects. There is no point in speculating how humanity if humanity would have survived when "godzillas" roamed the earth. I mean, look at us. we're a pretty resistant species and quite adaptable. More so than the dinos. So I'm pretty sure we would have survived and thrived and conquered the planet as we do now. We are the best form of life on the planet. We're #1. There is nothing, no other animal or plant or whatever on this planet that is as cool as we are. And so, we need to not be stupid about how we behave so we don't cause our own extinction.

The dinos couldn't prevent their own deaths. We can do things to prevent it. Like not causing climate change and have the climate of the world change into something we'd not enjoy. Or like not nuking ourselves to oblivion. Or like building a proper asteroid defense program so that we don't let big asteroids like Apophis come and end us. Which we can do because we are humans and we're the best thing ever.
 
A giant meteorite ends the time for the giant creatures.

That's one theory.

The position of the moon and sun are "perfect" to support life, so much so that one has to wonder why.

Such "thinking" puts the cart before the horse.

The moon and sun didn't develop the way they did because that's what life needed.

Life evolved the way it did because the sun and the moon provide what it needs.

So, if that rock never hit killing off the prehistoric creatures what would the purpose of Earth be?

The Earth has no "purpose".

Life has no "purpose".

Before you answer it is widely held that if man had evolved he would not have survived on a planet crawling with giant Godzillas.

When you say "widely held", what exactly do you mean?

At one time it was "widely held" among ignorant people that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Do you have some evidence that this "widely held" belief is also scientifically legitimate?

Or is it just conventional wisdom?

Also, it is almost certain there are planets out there that have life but why if there are no intelligent species as well?

I disagree that such a thing is "almost certain".

It can be argued with a fairly high degree of statistical probability if you make a whole hell of a lot of assumptions which necessarily need to be made a certain way in order for the statistics to support it, but there's absolutely zero evidence for it.

Assuming that you make the argument that it's pretty likely that there's life all over the universe what exactly is it that leads you to believe none of it is intelligent?

Why is all this stuff here if there is not some incredible event or destiny in the future?

The laws of physics.
 
Why is this a less likely place for life than a 4th Magnitude start on the other side of the Galaxy?
It's like saying... "what are the odds this particular woman who lives at 43 River Street in Albany NY winning Powerball?.. after the fact.
Well, just as good or bad as someone in Denver.

Someone is going to win and then do, They/We can marvel at the unlikely but.. ooops.. Inevitable somewhere; which Then becomes the amazing 'here'/'us'.
'Here' could have been/be Anywhere.
And "we" could be even 'better' creatures than humans.

The OP premise errors, include that humans are either the ultimate, or only sentient beings who could look at the universe with some perspective and 'marvel' how unlikely/amazing or singular they/'we' are.
 
Last edited:
You have to look at the existence of Earth--with the perfect conditions for life

WHOA THERE. Perfect conditions for life? First, that assumes life cannot arise without water and must be carbon based. This is a big assumption.

Second, there are places on Earth that most people would not consider "perfect." There are huge communities of life on the sea floor that never see any sunlight. All of their growth comes from bacteria that can fix and use chemicals from black and white smokers.

Third, this planet we call home has gone through massive changes. There were periods where most life died off because the planet was horribly inhospitable.

Fourth, we have found amino acids in space. Which suggests that life has and does get started elsewhere.

That said, there is o reason to believe that Earth is the exception means that there is some sort of meaning or plan behind it. Random chance seems more likely the answer. Not very fulfilling or satisfying, but it is what it is.

No disagreement there.
 
So slimy creatures and creepy plants once rule the world for millions and millions of years.

Well, marine life does dominate the planet is terms of years. Sharks came before trees for example.

A giant meteorite ends the time for the giant creatures.

Not really. An asteroid lead to climate change that wiped out the dinosaurs. That doesn't mean giant creatures never appeared. Periods before man have fossils of giant mammals. Like sloths the size of buses. The dinosaurs were hardly the last set of super fauna that the planet has seen. Nor where they the first.

Man shows up but only because the big boys were killed

This is arguably the most simplistic statement regarding the evolution of mammals from small rodent like creatures to the vast diversity we see today. Yes, the removal of theropods and sauropods did allow mammals to fill the niches and grow.

off by something trillions of miles away that just happened to hit Earth.

The Earth has been hit by space rocks for billions of years. There are huge numbers of craters on the Earth. And the moon shows just how often we really get hit as the Moon lacks erosion forces to cover them up. We're in a shooting gallery and it's not that rare. We saw Jupiter get slammed by asteroids and comets. Ain't new.

Meteors hit us all the time but that one rock gave a whole new meaning to why this planet supports life.

Well giant rocks are not that common and the planet supported life well before the Yucatan collision. If the rock didn't wipe out the dinosaurs, they would have kept evolving.

The position of the moon and sun are "perfect" to support life, so much so that one has to wonder why.

Define perfect. It appears you're assuming that life cannot start or evolve any other way. There's no real reason why a Moon is necessary for life.

So, if that rock never hit killing off the prehistoric creatures what would the purpose of Earth be?

Rocks have purposes?

Before you answer it is widely held that if man had evolved he would not have survived on a planet crawling with giant Godzillas.

Man as a species would never have evolved. Therefore there would be no man to test against dinosaurs. Also, man killed off a large amount of megafauna. Giant cave bears? We made them go extinct. Mammoths? Largely us.

Also, it is almost certain there are planets out there that have life but why if there are no intelligent species as well? Why is all this stuff here if there is not some incredible event or destiny in the future?

Seems you're trying to find some answers before educating yourself on the basics.
 
yeah, right, we can "do something" about an asteroid hit (of the size/type that ended the dinos). :) You live in fantasyland, man.
 
I love how pseudo-scientists always demand evidence of 'god', a thing metaphysical, but then freely postulate on the existence of life elsewhere, even non-carbon based life, etc. WITHOUT EVIDENCE. :lol:
 
I love how pseudo-scientists always demand evidence of 'god', a thing metaphysical, but then freely postulate on the existence of life elsewhere, even non-carbon based life, etc. WITHOUT EVIDENCE. :lol:

Why do you think we need evidence to postulate?

Speculation and dreaming are surely fine as long as you don't call it factual.
 
Why do you think we need evidence to postulate?

Speculation and dreaming are surely fine as long as you don't call it factual.

Sounds fine. Keep an open mind, because we admit we don't know everything. I'm all for it, Tim.
 
I love how pseudo-scientists always demand evidence of 'god', a thing metaphysical, but then freely postulate on the existence of life elsewhere, even non-carbon based life, etc. WITHOUT EVIDENCE. :lol:

Amino acids have been found in space. Care to try again?
 
Amino acids have been found in space. Care to try again?
That's kinda old news. But what was their IQ? lol

Seems we all have a favourite list of possibilities we're willing to entertain.
 
There is no hard evidence to suggest that earth is anything BUT unique in it's situation of harboring life.
Zilch, zero, nada, none.
Lots of dreamy eyed speculation, talk of possibilities and wishful thinking...
...No evidence.
 
That's kinda old news. But what was their IQ? lol

Seems we all have a favourite list of possibilities we're willing to entertain.

Um...okay. Point is that the building blocks of life are found outside of the planet. That should tell you something about life's prospects elsewhere.
 
My feeling is that, based past evolutions of human understandings across various genres of knowledge, our understanding of what could qualify as life in the universe remains extremely primitive. The search for ET remains very material, when there are other dimensions of reality happening here, many of which are intersecting with our material plane every second of the day. We are using a very material reductionist view of the universe in the search for ET.

It may be that human perception has to change in order to witness other kinds of life, and not necessarily our view of technology. There are many ancient traditions from all over the world that have similarities in their descriptions of ET, and they achieved contact through working with consciousness, not developing machines. Hypothetically, if you could you leave your body (which is a transmaterial phenomenon), you could travel anywhere in the universe instantaneously. I find that frontier of exploration far more fascinating than quibbling over which floating ball of rock however many light years away has life, which we will never be getting to anyway without materially bankrupting this planet. It may be that other sentient life is all around us right now, we have just fallen so deeply into pure materialism that we can't witness it right now.

More conspiratorially, part of me wonders if the exo-planet thing is a bait and switch to get everyone thinking about 'out there' when other intelligent life has already made contact here.
 
There is no hard evidence to suggest that earth is anything BUT unique in it's situation of harboring life.
Zilch, zero, nada, none.
Lots of dreamy eyed speculation, talk of possibilities and wishful thinking...
...No evidence.
"Hard evidence" of life. No.
but...
The Probability of Life outside earth has increased dramatically in just the last year!

[Billions of] Far-Off Planets Like the Earth Dot the Galaxy
By DENNIS OVERBYE
November 4, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/s...ts-that-could-be-like-earth.html?src=me&_r=1&
The known odds of something — or someone — living far, far away from Earth improved beyond astronomers’ boldest dreams on Monday.

Astronomers reported that there could be as many as 40 Billion habitable Earth-size planets in the galaxy, based on a new analysis of data from NASA’s Kepler spacecraft.

1 out of every 5 sunlike stars in the galaxy has a planet the Size of Earth circling it in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot, not too cold — where surface temperatures should be compatible with liquid water, according to a herculean three-year calculation based on data from the Kepler spacecraft by Erik Petigura, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.
[........]
 
Last edited:
"Hard evidence" of life. No.
but...
The Probability of Life outside earth has increased dramatically in just the last year!

[Billions of] Far-Off Planets Like the Earth Dot the Galaxy
By DENNIS OVERBYE
November 4, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/s...ts-that-could-be-like-earth.html?src=me&_r=1&
Probabilities are built on mathematical models and mathematical models are built on data points. The total of data points we currently have for life in the universe is exactly one.
No scientific probability model can be projected on one data point no matter how many billions of possibilities occur.
You are profoundly confused with the difference between possibilities and probabilities.
Wishful thinking that life exists outside of our planet can not be supported with the scientific process or any mathematical model.
Belief that life exists outside of our planet is just that ...dogmatic conviction and can not be based on real scientific evidence, or any amount of math.
The calculations based on data from the Kepler spacecraft can only affect the number of possibilities ... not probabilities or odds.
It's okay to dream or wish...as long as you know that is what you are doing.
 
Last edited:
Probabilities are built on mathematical models and mathematical models are built on data points. The total of data points we currently have for life in the universe is exactly one.
No scientific probability model can be projected on one data point no matter how many billions of possibilities occur.
You are profoundly confused with the difference between possibilities and probabilities.
Wishful thinking that life exists outside of our planet can not be supported with the scientific process or any mathematical model.
Belief that life exists outside of our planet is just that ...dogmatic conviction and can not be based on real scientific evidence, or any amount of math.
The calculations based on data from the Kepler spacecraft can only affect the number of possibilities ... not probabilities or odds.
It's okay to dream or wish...as long as you know that is what you are doing.
Not at all confused.
As the NYT says, the "odds" (aka probabilities) went up because of Kepler' finds.
They found far more rocky planets than they thought existed previous, and more in the Goldilocks zone too.
No one can prove life doesn't exist on 10 million degree stars or -400 degree rocks, but knowing what we do about Our life, we have another datapoint: us.

So with many more places FOR life, even (er.. especially) life like remotely like us (or that needs somewhat moderate conditions to develop) can exist, the Probability that it exists goes up as the number of viable host planets go up. They've also found even more specific conditions on some planets.

Perhaps you should also write a letter to the NYT author, since he also uses "improved odds" aka 'increased Probability'.
 
Last edited:
Amino acids have been found in space. Care to try again?
Not amino acidS...One amino acid was found out of 22...glycine ... the smallest and simplest of all the amino acids. That is a quantum leap away from a protein and that is a quantum leap from a living cell.
It's fun to dream but one amino acid molecule with a carbon 14 level different from earths glycine is not even close to evidence of life elsewhere.
 
Not at all confused.
As the NYT says, the "odds" (aka probabilities) went up because of Kepler' finds.
They found far more rocky planets than they thought existed previous, and more in the Goldilocks zone too.
No one can prove life doesn't exist on 10 million degree stars or -400 degree rocks, but knowing what we do about Our life, we have another datapoint: us.

So with many more places FOR life, even (er.. especially) life like remotely like us (or that needs somewhat moderate conditions to develop) can exist, the Probability that it exists goes up as the number of viable host planets go up. They've also found even more specific conditions on some planets.

Perhaps you should also write a letter to the NYT author, since he also uses "improved odds" aka 'increased Probability'.
The NYT author is not a scientist and neither are you.
No real scientist or mathematician will use the word "probability" when discussing life outside of earth...as I said, with only one data point we can only postulate the possibility that any given planet could host life.
You won't get "odds" for it in Vegas either...
You are still very confused about this.
This may help;
Probability vs Possibility
Probability and Possibility are two words that are often confused due to resemblance in their meanings. Strictly speaking they show some differences between them. The word ‘probability’ is used mainly in statistical calculations and would mean ‘occurrence in random’. On the other hand the word ‘possibility’ is used in the sense of ‘can’. This is the main difference between probability and possibility.
Probability refers to the likelihood of something happening. The likelihood of some event or happening is often referred to by the word probability. In other words it can be said that probability indicates the extent to which an event is likely to occur. It is usually measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases that are possible. Hence it can be said that probability is a subset of possibility.
Possibility is the universal set whereas probability is the subset. This is the main difference between the two words. The expression ‘in all probability’ suggests the meaning of ‘most probably’. Possibility is surer to occur than probability. Possibility has its opposite in the word impossibility whereas probability has its opposite in the word improbability.
A thing that may exist or happen is called as possibility whereas the occurrence of an event out of all sorts of possibility is called as probability. The word ‘probability’ thus involves the application of permutation and combination. Probability takes into account permutations and combinations to arrive at a conclusion regarding the occurrence of an event among all the possibilities.



Read more: Difference Between Probability and Possibility

With only one data point only possibilities can be postulated. It is possible that there is life on other planets but without any evidence of that occurrence comes the equally viable possibility that there is not. No degree of certainty or uncertainty can be postulated from the lack of evidence, so a probability can not be established.
 
Last edited:
So slimy creatures and creepy plants once rule the world for millions and millions of years. A giant meteorite ends the time for the giant creatures. Man shows up but only because the big boys were killed off by something trillions of miles away that just happened to hit Earth. Meteors hit us all the time but that one rock gave a whole new meaning to why this planet supports life. The position of the moon and sun are "perfect" to support life, so much so that one has to wonder why. So, if that rock never hit killing off the prehistoric creatures what would the purpose of Earth be? Before you answer it is widely held that if man had evolved he would not have survived on a planet crawling with giant Godzillas. Also, it is almost certain there are planets out there that have life but why if there are no intelligent species as well? Why is all this stuff here if there is not some incredible event or destiny in the future?

The thing that makes all life on earth so special in the cosmos is precisely because it's by random chance that life and us exist at all, let alone that we as a species would have the intelligence to ponder whether or not it has any metaphysical meaning. That is a luxury that most other life forms can't afford.
 
Last edited:
Well first off.

There is no other evidence that there is plant or animal life on any other planet. So we haven't found any plant or animal life or something recognizable to that extent on other planets. We are looking for microbial life on Mars as we speak and depending on what news you read, some said we found microbial life in a rock on Mars, some say we didn't. We know that we found evidence that there MAY have been microbial life on Mars 30 years ago. So we're 30 years too late to actually find it, just trace remains. Search for :Viking mission microbial life

ok.

Secondly.
Our solar system is quite special. Most solar systems that we see, so most other "suns" suck. Ours is really, really cool. Within this cool solar system there are a few planets and ours just happens to be within something called the "goldilocks zone" which is a zone that is close enough to the sun to be heated at above freezing temperatures at times and far away that we aren't a molting planet like Venus is, which is basically scolding hot. This "goldilocks" zone is quite a large zone. I mean it's not a small area. It's quite a big one. And the planet, our planet, moves in an eliptical ( oval ) fashion around the sun and that's how we get seasons. depending on where you are on the planet, 2 seasons or 4 seasons, but we get seasons. But because we move in an oval way, sometimes we are closer to the sun, sometimes we are farther... but we're still in the goldilocks zone. So it's a big, big area in space.


And third.
So we haven't found evidence of macroorganism life on this planet farther away than the dinosaurs. Some people once speculated that there may have been another "era" of life on the planet before the dinos, but there is no evidence of that. So we are part of the rebirth of life, a sort of, 2nd generation of life on the planet though we have SOME animals that exist from that dino era... like crocodiles and cockroaches and other insects. There is no point in speculating how humanity if humanity would have survived when "godzillas" roamed the earth. I mean, look at us. we're a pretty resistant species and quite adaptable. More so than the dinos. So I'm pretty sure we would have survived and thrived and conquered the planet as we do now. We are the best form of life on the planet. We're #1. There is nothing, no other animal or plant or whatever on this planet that is as cool as we are. And so, we need to not be stupid about how we behave so we don't cause our own extinction.

The dinos couldn't prevent their own deaths. We can do things to prevent it. Like not causing climate change and have the climate of the world change into something we'd not enjoy. Or like not nuking ourselves to oblivion. Or like building a proper asteroid defense program so that we don't let big asteroids like Apophis come and end us. Which we can do because we are humans and we're the best thing ever.

1.You forget the mathematical probability of life elsewhere stating there is.
2. A single solar flare could singe Earth in one try.
3. There was most likely two stages of prehistoric life ,the first dying off from poisonous sulpheric gas.
4. We cannot at present avoid annihilation by meteorite but we are working on it.
 
Um...okay. Point is that the building blocks of life are found outside of the planet. That should tell you something about life's prospects elsewhere.
Which I do not deny. However, carbon is building block, and it's everywhere.

So, granted it's possible... but not PROVEN... for those who insist on seeing empirical proof in order to believe things... or even admit their POSSIBILITY.

Just sayin!

My view, regardless of origin is that life is the ultimate "product" of this universe, in the natural progression from pre-bosonic matter to simple atoms, to heavy elements, to molecules. These happened sequentially, through well understood processes. The complexity of organization increases over time, logically, through what we humans perceive as "laws" of the universe. The pinnacle of achievement, the most complex of molecules is DNA which is the blueprint for living organisms. And of all organisms KNOWN to us, we, the human beings, are the most complex and highly organized things there is. That is a fact, from which you may draw your own conclusions!
 
That's one theory.



Such "thinking" puts the cart before the horse.

The moon and sun didn't develop the way they did because that's what life needed
.

Correct, but my point is life resulted from it!! Read your own words below

Life evolved the way it did because the sun and the moon provide what it needs.



The Earth has no "purpose".

Earth does indeed have a purpose as man does have a destiny;

Life has no "purpose".

Prove it.

When you say "widely held", what exactly do you mean?

What?!

At one time it was "widely held" among ignorant people that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Do you have some evidence that this "widely held" belief is also scientifically legitimate?

Yes.

Or is it just conventional wisdom?



I disagree that such a thing is "almost certain".

It can be argued with a fairly high degree of statistical probability if you make a whole hell of a lot of assumptions which necessarily need to be made a certain way in order for the statistics to support it, but there's absolutely zero evidence for it.

I am not here to state proof and no one lease is or can.

Assuming that you make the argument that it's pretty likely that there's life all over the universe what exactly is it that leads you to believe none of it is intelligent?

What leads you to assume it is not?

The laws of physics.

"The laws of physics"...have nothing to do with the conditions of life here
 
Back
Top Bottom